This site is the archived OWASP Foundation Wiki and is no longer accepting Account Requests.
To view the new OWASP Foundation website, please visit https://owasp.org
Difference between revisions of "OWASP Summer of Code 2008 Applications"
(→OWASP Interception Project - 2008 Update) |
Deleted user (talk | contribs) m (→OWASP Application Security Verification Standard) |
||
| (46 intermediate revisions by 20 users not shown) | |||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
The ASDR is a reference volume that contains basic information about all the foundational topics in application security. It intends to replace and refresh [[OWASP Honeycomb Project|Honeycomb Project]] with a new structure for articles and relationship between categories, thus making it a release quality doc. | The ASDR is a reference volume that contains basic information about all the foundational topics in application security. It intends to replace and refresh [[OWASP Honeycomb Project|Honeycomb Project]] with a new structure for articles and relationship between categories, thus making it a release quality doc. | ||
| − | This idea raised | + | This idea raised while finishing the [[Attack|Attack Reference Guide]] for [[OWASP Spring Of Code 2007|OWASP Spring Of Code 2007]], where it was identified that OWASP reference articles needed some special attention. Jeff Williams is totally supporting this project. |
We already have defined which type of article we should include on Desk Reference, as follows: | We already have defined which type of article we should include on Desk Reference, as follows: | ||
| Line 27: | Line 27: | ||
* [[:Category:Business Impact|Business Impacts]] | * [[:Category:Business Impact|Business Impacts]] | ||
| − | *Road Map: A complete project roadmap can be found on '''[[ | + | *Road Map: A complete project roadmap can be found on '''[[OWASP_ASDR_Workplan]]'''. Basically, the following activities should be performed, some of them already started: |
** Define articles templates for each reference type | ** Define articles templates for each reference type | ||
** Define subcategories for articles classification | ** Define subcategories for articles classification | ||
| Line 193: | Line 193: | ||
'''Project Proposal''' | '''Project Proposal''' | ||
| − | + | This proposal is to request approval for leading the OWASP .NET project. The project will contain information, materials and software that are relevant to building secure .NET web applications and services. The goal of the project is to provide deep content for all roles related to .NET web applications and services including: | |
| − | * Architectural guidance | + | *Architectural guidance |
| − | * Developer tools, information and checklists | + | *Developer tools, information and checklists |
| − | * IT professional content (for those that deploy and maintain .NET websites) | + | *IT professional content (for those that deploy and maintain .NET websites) |
| − | * Penetration testing resources | + | *Penetration testing resources |
| − | * Incident response resources | + | *Incident response resources |
| + | The OWASP .NET Project Leader will actively recruit .NET contributors, including personnel from Microsoft, but others throughout the .NET ecosystem. Including experts from communities from large companies to ISVs, from enterprise architects to ALT.NET developers will be important for the overall reach of the OWASP .NET project. Other communities to consider include developers who use Mono (.NET for Linux), including Moonlight (Silverlight for Linux). | ||
| − | The OWASP .NET Project Leader will actively | + | The OWASP .NET Project Leader will actively contribute to the OWASP projects that require .NET resources, by recruiting resources or contributing to the project. |
| − | + | '''Deliverables''' | |
| − | + | April 2, 2008 - May 3, 2008 | |
| + | *Project site layout reorganization | ||
| + | *Presentation materials for OWASP chapters for integrating the OWASP .NET project tools and references into a project life cycle | ||
| + | *Bullet points for community and media outreach plans | ||
| + | |||
| + | April 13, 2008 - May 16, 2008 | ||
| + | *Community outreach - contact .NET user groups, OWASP chapters to get feedback about tools and references that are needed for security in their fields of expertise. Distribute materials for integrating OWASP .NET into their project plans and toolboxes. | ||
| + | *Media outreach - contact .NET media resources to talk about the .NET project and request content and contributors | ||
| + | *Start a special projects section for emerging projects in the .NET space, including Silverlight (Moonlight), WPF XBAP applications, Windows Communication Foundation, ADO.NET Data Services, Enterprise Library 4.0, Policy and Dependency Injection, Agile methodologies. | ||
| + | |||
| + | May 17, 2008 - June 14, 2008 | ||
| + | *Reach out to other SoC .NET projects, try to find resources if the projects need them. | ||
| + | *Contribute to other SoC .NET projects, where needed. | ||
| + | *Gather feedback and follow up from first round of outreach effort. | ||
| + | |||
| + | June 15, 2008 | ||
| + | *Status report for Project | ||
| + | |||
| + | June 16, 2008 - August 31, 2008 | ||
| + | *Expand community and media outreach efforts. | ||
| + | *Continue to recruit and help other OWASP projects with resources. | ||
| + | *Update promotional materials to include emerging projects. | ||
| + | |||
| + | August 31, 2008 | ||
| + | *Retrospective of the first 5 months of the OWASP .NET Project. | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''Long Term Vision''' | ||
| + | |||
| + | The OWASP .NET Project will be a valuable resource for securing .NET applications and services. I want people to think of this project first when they need to gather information or find tools for designing, developing, maintaining, pen-testing software developed with .NET. This project will be the hub for all .NET security resources, and of course with content created and maintained by the Open Source community. | ||
'''Why I should be sponsored for the project''' | '''Why I should be sponsored for the project''' | ||
| − | I have previously contributed to the OWASP Test Guide v2 project, providing content and reviewed content. | + | I have previously contributed to the OWASP Test Guide v2 project, providing content and reviewed content. I have used the OWASP Top 10 to teach developers about vulnerabilities in web applications and the OWASP WebScarab tool for vulnerability analysis. As a security practictioner, I care about the OWASP mission and I want to contribute to securing the Internet for everyone. |
| + | |||
| + | I have 15 years of technical leadership experience using Microsoft technologies. I have lead software development teams as a technical lead, lead developer and architect on small and large projects. I am a Certified Information Systems Security Professional (CISSP) and a Certified Ethical Hacker (C|EH). I am on top of current trends and I am required to be up to speed regarding .NET web development and security. I am personally interested in providing security resources to .NET developers globally, specific and applicable to their projects. | ||
| − | |||
== OWASP Backend Security Project == | == OWASP Backend Security Project == | ||
| Line 361: | Line 391: | ||
*Secure web portal application development | *Secure web portal application development | ||
*Secure web portal integration | *Secure web portal integration | ||
| − | *Secure instant messaging application development, including | + | *Secure instant messaging application development, including patents |
The applicant also has a background in cryptomodule testing: | The applicant also has a background in cryptomodule testing: | ||
| Line 412: | Line 442: | ||
The applicant has a uniquely-qualified perspective given his experience with TCSEC, TTAP, CC, FIPS 140-1, and FIPS 140-2 evaluation programs, and his real-world perspective as a developer and integrator of security-related applications. | The applicant has a uniquely-qualified perspective given his experience with TCSEC, TTAP, CC, FIPS 140-1, and FIPS 140-2 evaluation programs, and his real-world perspective as a developer and integrator of security-related applications. | ||
| − | |||
== GTK+ GUI for w3af project == | == GTK+ GUI for w3af project == | ||
| Line 526: | Line 555: | ||
rate that we want to. | rate that we want to. | ||
| − | == | + | == P025 OWASP Positive Security Project == |
by Eduardo Vianna de Camargo Neves | by Eduardo Vianna de Camargo Neves | ||
| Line 532: | Line 561: | ||
'''Executive Summary''' | '''Executive Summary''' | ||
| − | A common approach on most companies is to increase the protection of their assets after the occurrence of a considerable impact. However some companies learned that a positive approach on IT Security is most effective and can reduce the financial costs on responses to security incidents. Benchmarking the application security practices on the corporate world will allow us to understand what steps are required to keep the IT environment protected, using this knowledge | + | A common approach on most companies is to increase the protection of their assets after the occurrence of a considerable impact. However some companies learned that a positive approach on IT Security is most effective and can reduce the financial costs on responses to security incidents. Benchmarking the application security practices on the corporate world will allow us to understand what steps are required to keep the IT environment protected, using this knowledge to support the development of a campaign to spread a positive security posture in the market. The liaison with companies that maintain good security practices will help to start this initiative from a higher degree and involve several actors on the security stage for the same direction to a market were security is understood as a business value. |
| − | |||
| − | |||
'''Approach''' | '''Approach''' | ||
| − | Assessing | + | Assessing results from the Corporate Application Security Rating Guide Project and other public sources will be used to support the development of the Positive Security Project with facts from a real analysis. |
'''Benefits''' | '''Benefits''' | ||
| − | The whole community will be benefited from | + | The whole community will be benefited from this initiatives. With the adequate support from OWASP to maintain the project active and liaise with big players on the market, we can expect the following: |
| − | • The community will receive a | + | • The community will receive a guide to practice the "Positive Approach" that will allow them to compare their own security practices within the market. As this will be a public document, suppliers and buyers worldwide will share the same information allowing them to adequate the expectations on the usage of security services and tools. |
| − | • | + | • Compliance and alignment with Positive Approach can be used as a marketing tool by the companies, allowing them to sell security as a business value and avoiding the old-fashion and inadequate FUD approach. |
| − | • The knowledge and relationship developed during the | + | • The knowledge and relationship developed during the development will support the Positive Security Project with real information, increasing the credibility of the initiative for the market. |
• The Security Rating Guide and the Positive Security Project can be walk in parallel, merging their information to support a concise and continuous marketing campaign to encourage a positive approach on the market. | • The Security Rating Guide and the Positive Security Project can be walk in parallel, merging their information to support a concise and continuous marketing campaign to encourage a positive approach on the market. | ||
| Line 560: | Line 587: | ||
The activities will be carried on WBS summarized bellow. Dates presented should be considered as deadlines for the activities: | The activities will be carried on WBS summarized bellow. Dates presented should be considered as deadlines for the activities: | ||
| − | • Criteria establishment and definition of the | + | • Criteria establishment and definition of the marketing material and support documents (April 11) |
| − | • | + | • Approval of marketing templates for Positive Security Project (April 25) (1) |
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
• Development of the Positive Security Project material (i.e. blog and marketing sheets) (May 30) | • Development of the Positive Security Project material (i.e. blog and marketing sheets) (May 30) | ||
| − | • Liaison with the OWASP Members | + | • Liaison with the OWASP Members and analyzed companies to present the project and negotiate their participation as supporters, sponsors or contributors. (June 27) |
| − | • Update | + | • Update on Positive Security approach deliverables(July 4) |
| − | • Presentation of the Positive Security Project approach | + | • Presentation of the Positive Security Project approach on the market (July 31) (2) |
• Conference calls with team members to evaluate the results of the initiatives in all countries and produce project´s documents (i.e. lessons learned, update on marketing material and evaluation of alternative approaches for the future steps). (August 15) | • Conference calls with team members to evaluate the results of the initiatives in all countries and produce project´s documents (i.e. lessons learned, update on marketing material and evaluation of alternative approaches for the future steps). (August 15) | ||
| Line 582: | Line 603: | ||
• Prepare project documentation and present to the OWASP community on the web site (August 31) | • Prepare project documentation and present to the OWASP community on the web site (August 31) | ||
| − | ''(1) Support from OWASP Foundation | + | ''(1) Support from OWASP Foundation and community are required to evaluate adequate marketing templates and translate original documents for their own languages'' |
| − | ''(2 | + | ''(2) Support from OWASP community is required to spread the word on all countries were OWASP members are located.'' |
| − | |||
| − | |||
''''' | ''''' | ||
| Line 605: | Line 624: | ||
'''Long Range Plan''' | '''Long Range Plan''' | ||
| − | + | The project should be used as a tool to support efforts to encourage and make the positive approach a reality on the IT Security field. These initiatives shall be supported by OWASP as long term plans and grow to a continuous world-wide campaign in this direction that must achieve big players on the market and be recognized by the community as a tool that must be used to evaluate security enabled companies and products. | |
'''Why me?''' | '''Why me?''' | ||
| − | Can be me, you or anyone that carries | + | Can be me, you or anyone that carries this project in a professional fashion and assure that all deliverables are being achieved. The most important parts is to make it happen, talk and get the support from reputable associations and large companies (OWASP Members are a good start) and lead it as a long range responsibility. |
I am running to win this project because I believe in all of this. I see both as very valuable initiatives that can help companies to make more business; people to get more jobs and the whole community to win in a scenario where our contributions on the security market are recognized as business tools. | I am running to win this project because I believe in all of this. I see both as very valuable initiatives that can help companies to make more business; people to get more jobs and the whole community to win in a scenario where our contributions on the security market are recognized as business tools. | ||
| Line 630: | Line 649: | ||
• Founder and member of GISI-PR, an open community focused on discuss and promote Information Security initiatives within Paraná State, Brazil | • Founder and member of GISI-PR, an open community focused on discuss and promote Information Security initiatives within Paraná State, Brazil | ||
| − | |||
== P017 - OWASP AppSensor - Detect and Respond to Attacks from Within the Application == | == P017 - OWASP AppSensor - Detect and Respond to Attacks from Within the Application == | ||
| Line 670: | Line 688: | ||
May 1, 2008-June 1, 2008 - Document points of detection within the application for the attack patterns & identify key information to log | May 1, 2008-June 1, 2008 - Document points of detection within the application for the attack patterns & identify key information to log | ||
| − | June 1, 2008-June 13, 2008 - | + | June 1, 2008-June 13, 2008 - Peer Review & Revisions |
June 15, 2008 - Status Report | June 15, 2008 - Status Report | ||
| Line 678: | Line 696: | ||
June 16, 2008-Aug 15, 2008 - Define recommended response actions for the security alerts | June 16, 2008-Aug 15, 2008 - Define recommended response actions for the security alerts | ||
| − | Aug 16, 2008-Aug 30, 2008 - | + | Aug 16, 2008-Aug 30, 2008 - Peer Review & Revisions |
Aug 31, 2008 - Project Complete | Aug 31, 2008 - Project Complete | ||
| Line 712: | Line 730: | ||
I created a similar framework while working within a Security Operation Center. I created attack scenarios, identified relevant IDS events, defined thresholds and appropriate response action for the Security analysts. | I created a similar framework while working within a Security Operation Center. I created attack scenarios, identified relevant IDS events, defined thresholds and appropriate response action for the Security analysts. | ||
| + | '''Requested Reviewer - Eric Sheridan, Application Security Consultant at Aspect Security, Inc.''' | ||
| + | |||
| + | Eric Sheridan is an Application Security Consultant at Aspect Security, a consulting services company specializing in application security. At Aspect Security, Eric specializes in execution of security verification assessments and the establishment of security activities throughout the development lifecycle. In addition, Eric is an instructor in Aspect’s portfolio of Application Security Courses. Eric is also an active participant in OWASP whose contributions include work with projects such as WebGoat, Stinger, CSRFGuard, CSRFTester, and the SASAP project from OWASP SPoC 2007. Eric was also a featured speaker at the 2007 OWASP/WASC San Jose conference. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Contact Information: eric dot sheridan 'at' owasp dot org | ||
== OWASP Interceptor Project - 2008 Update == | == OWASP Interceptor Project - 2008 Update == | ||
| Line 752: | Line 775: | ||
'''Why should I be sponsored for the project?''' | '''Why should I be sponsored for the project?''' | ||
| − | The current development cycle stopped due to limited time and the need to purchase the IDE tools to develop the interface in .NET. As a Summer of Code 2008 sponsored project we can get the IDE interface tools to implement “Vista” features that will see the tool run on all .NET platforms (Win2000, XP and Vista). | + | |
| + | The current development cycle stopped due to limited time and the need to purchase the IDE tools to develop the interface in .NET. As a Summer of Code 2008 sponsored project we can get the IDE interface tools to implement “Vista” features that will see the tool run on all .NET platforms (Win2000, XP and Vista). Recent changes in my job will allow me to spend more time on developing the toolkit. | ||
Over a number of years I have been involved with OWASP, whilst most recently getting involved with running the OWASP Australia Security Conference for 2008, as well as the Brisbane Chapter. I am also working in the Asia Pacific RIM to further increase the awareness of OWASP and Application Security. My Conference duties for the year have finished up (till planning starts again in a couple of months) so my time can be invested in updating the toolkit. | Over a number of years I have been involved with OWASP, whilst most recently getting involved with running the OWASP Australia Security Conference for 2008, as well as the Brisbane Chapter. I am also working in the Asia Pacific RIM to further increase the awareness of OWASP and Application Security. My Conference duties for the year have finished up (till planning starts again in a couple of months) so my time can be invested in updating the toolkit. | ||
| − | + | I believe during the previous years, i have shown OWASP that i am willing and able to produce a quality outcome and i am prepared to put the effort into OWASP to acheive the goals set out for this project. | |
| + | |||
| + | Some of the Sponsorship money for the project would go to purchasing a specific toolkit for the UI. (The UI is important simply because we want the application to be user friendly). Xceed Components provide a Smart UI as well as some of the decoding and compression features the tool needs. This would require us to approach them upfront for a “free” licence or use some of the Sponsorship money to buy the toolkit. But we can tackle that problem when we come to it. | ||
| + | |||
| + | == SQL Injector Benchmarking Project (SQLiBENCH) == | ||
| + | |||
| + | by Mesut Timur & Bedirhan Urgun | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''Prelude''' | ||
| + | |||
| + | There're a lot of and great open source tools (takeover/dumpers/hybrid) for taking advantage of an sql injection vulnerability both used by web application security specialists and attackers. | ||
| + | Techniques used, databases supported, algorithms employed and abilities implemented by these "sql injectors" greatly varies. Standardization is one of the abstract goals of OWASP and we think it's important to standardize general vulnerability techniques exists in web applications and one of the biggest one is sql manipulation. | ||
| + | In our effort, we aim to produce a standardization of techniques used in exploiting sql injection by automatic tools. | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''Proposal''' | ||
| + | |||
| + | The goal of the project is to create a detailed set of benchmarking criterias for automatic sql injection tools and applying these to a set of open source sql injectors, producing analysis/benchmarking reports. | ||
| + | Additionaly, in a semi-academic manner, algorithms used by several sql injectors will be analyzed both implementation and complexity vise. | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''Deliverables And Project Schedule Milestones''' | ||
| + | |||
| + | Two set of documents will be produced. One of them will include the benchmarking criterias and the other will comprise of analysis of selected sql injectors against the benchmarking criterias. | ||
| + | Moreover, an interactive visual data flow diagram, giving hints to testers about which tool should be used under which circumstances, will be implemented with web-based technologies such as jquery library. | ||
| + | |||
| + | April 03 Project Kickoff | ||
| + | |||
| + | April 03-30 Determination of the benchmarking criterias | ||
| + | |||
| + | May 01-15 Producing a test environment image with 5-6 rdbms (MSSQL Express, Oracle Express, DB2 Express, MySQL, PgSQL, etc.) and a vulnerable application (which will support different sql injection types, databases and include logging capabilities) | ||
| + | |||
| + | May 15-31 Selecting and installing automatic sql injectors onto the test system and starting to use them on vulnerable application | ||
| + | |||
| + | June 01-30 Analysing tools and applying benchmarking criterias, contacting the authors as we proceed | ||
| + | |||
| + | July 01-31 Producing reports for benchmarking criterias and tool analysis | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''About Us''' | ||
| + | |||
| + | We're part of OWASP-Turkey. [http://www.h-labs.org Mesut Timur] is a junior in the Computer Engineering Dept. of [http://www.gyte.edu.tr University of GYTE] and [http://www.webguvenligi.org Bedirhan Urgun] is a web/application security specialist in [http://www.uekae.tubitak.gov.tr TUBITAK-UEKAE]. | ||
| + | |||
| + | == OWASP-WeBekci Project == | ||
| + | |||
| + | by Bunyamin Demir | ||
| + | |||
| + | http://www.owasp.org/index.php/Category:OWASP_WeBekci_Project | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''Executive Summary''' | ||
| + | |||
| + | Web application firewalls (WAF) are gaining importance among the information security technologies designed to protect web sites from attack. WAF solutions prevent attacks that network firewalls and intrusion detection systems can't and they require no modification of application source code. ModSecurity [http://www.modsecurity.org/] is an open source web application firewall that runs as an Apache module. It is an embeddable web application firewall and it provides protection from a range of attacks against web applications. It is an open source project available to everyone; it however does not come with an admin panel. | ||
| + | |||
| + | I decided to provide this essential tool with a control panel which I believe will ease and thus encourage its usage. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ModSecurity allows for HTTP traffic monitoring and real-time analysis with no changes to existing infrastructure. My main goal is to analyze attacks and generate rules to change the configuration of the ModSecurity accordingly. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ModSecurity has a feature called “flexible rule engine” as its heart of Attack Prevention capability . It uses ModSecurity’s “Rule Language,” (a programming language designed to work with HTTP transaction data). It is easy to use and flexible; yet the system administrators need to learn its own rules to create what is called “Certified ModSecurity Rules” to be implemented. My control panel will automate the major code-generation in Rule Language. | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''Objectives and Deliverables''' | ||
| + | |||
| + | * '''Configuration''' : Most of the configuration parameters will be managed through the web interface | ||
| + | * '''Rule Generator''' : Basic rules will be generated using the web interface | ||
| + | * '''Core Rule Integration''': Core rules will be added to the database for use | ||
| + | * '''Logging and Reporting''': Apache error log and modsec_audit log will be parsed and presented to the user thru the web interface | ||
| + | * '''DB Support''' : MySQL | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''Why I should be sponsored for the project''' | ||
| + | Being a SpoC2007 project, it couldn't be implemented mainly due to a job change and therefore lack of time. With the help of Bedirhan Urgun we'll be able to produce a quality web admin panel GUI for a same host modsec installation infrastructure. We are both part of OWASP Turkey [http://www.owasp.org/index.php/Turkey] and tried to produce a great deal of awareness both about web security and OWASP with both documents/chapter meetings/email list and mini-conferences. | ||
| + | |||
| + | == Teachable Static Analysis Workbench == | ||
| + | |||
| + | By Dmitry Kozlov, Igor Konnov | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''Introduction:''' | ||
| + | |||
| + | This application covers two OWASP Project proposals: P002 Teachable Static Analysis Workbench and P023 Code Review Tree. These project proposals look complementary and the key idea was to create ONE tool for code review instead of number non-integrated tools. | ||
| + | Note: this project is very close to P024 Attack Surface Metric too – based on web application entry points and used backends it is easy to compute such a metric. | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''Project objectives and deliverables:''' | ||
| + | |||
| + | Project is intended two deliverables: research technical report (publication ready article) and a workbench prototype. | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | The research will be intended to answer the following questions: | ||
| + | * Can we integrate existing open source static analysis tools (OWASP and third-party) to work altogether? We plan analysis to cover the following tools: LAPSE, Orizon, ESAPI, FindBugs. | ||
| + | * How static analysis workbench can be taught by security analyst? | ||
| + | * How static analysis workbench can support web-applications built using MVC frameworks? | ||
| + | |||
| + | Workbench prototype will be Java-based Eclipse plug-in which aim is to help security analyst/code reviewer validation of web application. At prototype step we suggest to analyze J2EE Web tier applications build on Java Servlets, JSP (without business logic in it) and one MVC framework (Apache Struts). We plan workbench prototype to have the following functionality: | ||
| + | * Input validation vulnerabilities analysis: identification of web application entry points (aka attack surface in P024), call graph for each entry point (see “Packages -> Classes -> Methods -> callsites” in P023), identification of data validation routines, teachable taint analysis. | ||
| + | * Authentification and access control analysis: identification of code related to access control and it’s analysis. | ||
| + | * Pattern-based code analysis. | ||
| + | * Teachability: analyst indicates security-related code (sources of tainted data, sensitive sinks, input validation and sanitizing functions, access control code, etc.) and workbench automatically recomputes possible vulnerabilities list. The second idea is to spread knowledge gathered from analyst to other web applications. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Project budget: $10K (note: this project combines two OWAPS Project Proposals) | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | '''Future development:''' | ||
| + | |||
| + | Further, workbench can be extended to support various Java web application frameworks and to support Python web applications (it seems to us that teachable tool is much more valuable for Python and other languages where the notion of web application is not so formal as in J2EE). | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | '''Background: ''' | ||
| + | |||
| + | Dmitry Kozlov is a postdoc researcher at Moscow State | ||
| + | University. Since 2003 he leads a group performing research in the area of web | ||
| + | application security. In 2007 this group took part in OWASP Spring of | ||
| + | Code on project "Python Dynamic Analysis". This project was implemented | ||
| + | mostly by Dmitry’s PhD student Andrew Petukhov. Also in 2007 this group created static analysis tool for Python language, based on Pixy PHP analyser (publication is upcoming). | ||
| + | |||
| + | Igor Konnov is PhD student at Moscow State University he has strong background in program analysis and verification. | ||
| + | |||
| + | == OpenPGP Extensions for HTTP - Enigform and mod_openpgp == | ||
| + | By Arturo 'Buanzo' Busleiman | ||
| + | |||
| + | === Introduction to the project === | ||
| + | My name is Arturo Busleiman, a.k.a Buanzo. Last year I worked with OWASP to take Enigform (The OpenPGP Firefox Extension) and mod_openpgp (The Apache counterpart) to an usable level. This year, I want to focus on mod_openpgp and Secure Session Management, presenting a working web-site using this new authentication methodology in such a way that it will attract security professionals and web-developers to this new mix of two good'ol protocols: HTTP and OpenPGP. | ||
| + | |||
| + | For that to happen, OWASP support is essential. I'm very happy to submit my application for Summer of Code 2008. | ||
| + | |||
| + | === About Buanzo === | ||
| + | |||
| + | I am a 26 year old Independent security consultant from Buenos Aires, Argentina, that has contributed to the world of information systems security since 1994. Linux and Security are my life. | ||
| + | |||
| + | A quick search for buanzo on google [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=buanzo&btnG=Google+Search] will provide all necessary details about my professional and community background. For comprobable experience, you could also check my Rent a Coder profile.[http://www.rentacoder.com/RentACoder/SoftwareCoders/showBioInfo.asp?lngAuthorId=735204] or my "Customer Comments" page at [http://www.buanzo.com.ar/pro/]. | ||
| + | |||
| + | I've contributed scripts, fixes and translations to the Nmap project. I've also acted as Expert Contributor for SANS TOP-20 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007. I've developed | ||
| + | tools and written documentation that can be found in Freshmeat, mozdev.org and addons.mozilla.org. Also I've written | ||
| + | the Unix chapter of the OISSG's Information Systems Security Assessment Framework, v1.0 [http://www.oissg.org/content/view/71/71/]. | ||
| + | |||
| + | In my free time, I "run" the 2600 Argentina meetings, write articles, give talks and play the guitar. | ||
| + | |||
| + | I'm an active member of the FLOSS community since 1996, having written articles in magazines http://www.net-security.org/dl/articles/Detecting_and_Understanding_rootkits.txt, made TV, radio and newspaper appearances [http://codigoabierto.bitacoras.com/archivos/2005/04/01/buanzo-hacks] and led different security research groups of Spain, Mexico and Argentina. Currently I contribute time thorugh my sites, forums and blogs, answering questions in mailing lists and helping coordinate some local LUGs. I do also manager the Linux Counter for Argentina [http://counter.li.org/reports/place.php?place=AR]. | ||
| + | |||
| + | === About Enigform === | ||
| + | |||
| + | The project has draw attention from the IETF OpenPGP Working Group, and even Vinton Cerf (The Father of the Internet) said that Enigform and mod_openpgp "[this] strikes me as a really interesting idea and I hope you (Buanzo) will pursue it with the W3C." (February 18, 2008). [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enigform] | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | == OWASP AntiSamy .NET == | ||
| + | * Arshan Dabirsiaghi<br> | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''Executive Summary'''<br> | ||
| + | The OWASP AntiSamy Project was well received at the OWASP/WASC San Jose 2007 conference, and the momentum carried forward as the project was noted in several popular blogs and had its various distributions downloaded in aggregate thousands of times.<br><br> | ||
| + | |||
| + | All the platforms, not just Java, need this functionality. The Zend group is currently working on getting a PHP version started, so naturally the only platform remaining for major sites is .NET. Therefore, I propose that OWASP sponsor me in creating a .NET version of the OWASP AntiSamy Project. It should also be noted that the OWASP ESAPI .NET project requires this API to be created. | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''Background'''<br> | ||
| + | I'm currently a Senior Application Security Engineer at Aspect Security, an industry leading application security company. I've delivered tutorials all over the country at various commercial organizations and conferences like OWASP and Blackhat. | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''Proposed Project Reviewer: Jeff Williams/Dinis Cruz'''<br> | ||
| + | Jeff Williams will be the easiest reviewer due to proximity, but Dinis Cruz's or another OWASP .NET project member's knowledge of .NET may prove useful to the project. | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''Objectives and Deliverables''' <br> | ||
| + | The aim of the project would be to deliver a functionally identical version of the AntiSamy project in .NET. Secondarily, we would hope to deliver a Release quality product by the end of the Summer of Code timeframe in line with the Java version. | ||
| + | |||
| + | == Online code signing and integrity verification service for open source community (OpenSign Server) == | ||
| + | |||
| + | by ''Phil Potisk'' and ''Richard Conway'' | ||
| + | |||
| + | It is the opinion of this pair that there is a decided lack of code signing and integrity checking support for the open source community. The purpose of this project would be to build and host a feature-rich server and suite of client utilities with adequate secure hardware to ensure the integrity of code modules. | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''Summary'''<br/> | ||
| + | |||
| + | The service will allow all .NET and Java code modules to be uploaded to the service to be signed by a community code signing key. Each community (such as OWASP) will have a key and corresponding Software Publishing Certificate (SPC) which can optionally be embedded in the code module itself. Generally, however, the service is intended for developers and the wider community of concerned users that want to ensure that their downloaded portable executable is exactly what it purports to be. The root key will be stored in an HSM and will sign an SPC from a locally generated key-pair of which the public key will be sent to the service. Key pair generation can be made and submitted using standard .NET delay signing and jar signing tools distributed with the SDKs, however, the project remit will ensure that a client-side graphical tool for each environment is available to generate the keys pairs needed to sign code with and allow submission to the code signing service for signing and generation of SPC by the server's proprietary CA. Anonymity will not be allowed so the project will include a database of users which will be the basis of directory for SPCs. | ||
| + | |||
| + | There will be a web and web services interface using an online login and WS-Security respectively which will allow the code to be uploaded on demand and signed by a code signing key with the option to embed the certificate or not. | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''Problem domain'''<br/> | ||
| + | |||
| + | - Current download of portable executables inherently insecure with only a CRC/MD5 check <br/> | ||
| + | - No open source standard for code signing and delivery of portable executables between developers to test for tamper evidence <br/> | ||
| + | - No managed service for code signing outside of verisign or other paid for X509 signing service <br/> | ||
| + | - Process currently very mechanical with use of command line tools or PKCS#10 software requests which should be abstracted from developer <br/> | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''Ideal Solution''' <br/> | ||
| + | |||
| + | - Ensure third party verification of code modules through a dedicated PKI backbone <br/> | ||
| + | - Educate the OWASP and wider open source community in the use of code signing <br/> | ||
| + | - Replace standard CRC/MD5 hash usage with some more secure that can be repudiated if challenged | ||
| + | - Use an internet infrastructure to allow the dissemination of certificates (potentially multipurpose in later versions) <br/> | ||
| + | - Ensure accountability through actions logging and authentication <br/> | ||
| + | - Standardise a set of open source client tools for the creation of keys and manipulation of certificates <br/> | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''Graphical Interfaces'''<br/> | ||
| + | |||
| + | - Client tool to generate RSA key pair and request signing certificate by return via a secure connection, secure connection will authenticate user after a dedicated registration process and also use mutual authentication SSL to avoid man-in-the-middle - returning certificate to user in real time. Registered developer can then submit their SPC online to verify the SPC. <br/> | ||
| + | - Client tool to download software that will do a proper verification on the software against the code signing service <br/> | ||
| + | - Website interface for the code signing service <br/> | ||
| + | - Set of Admin tools to manage the code signing service, user and certificate repository <br/> | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''Added advantage''' <br/> | ||
| + | |||
| + | Environment can be secured and tested regularly by members of Owasp to ensure the security of the server and infrastructure haven't been hijacked! The project will only be as secure the server environment! | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''Breakdown of tasks'''<br/> | ||
| + | |||
| + | - Server setup and installation of OpenLDAP <br/> | ||
| + | - Installation of Mock HSM (eAladdin token) <br/> | ||
| + | - Creation of PKCS#11 for key management and key creation activities <br/> | ||
| + | - Installation of Java/.NET SDKs <br/> | ||
| + | - Development of codebase for signing using SDK tools (later versions will reverse engineer this into jar/assemblies directly) <br/> | ||
| + | - Library for creating SPC (CA) <br/> | ||
| + | - User registration, authentication, activity logging, database support <br/> | ||
| + | - OpenLDAP user/certificate repository, access using mutual-authentication SSL <br/> | ||
| + | - Development of client tool suite <br/> | ||
| + | - Development of administrator tools <br/> | ||
| + | - Procurement of FIPs compliant HSM and installation <br/> | ||
| + | - Administrator/user manuals <br/> | ||
| + | - Pen testing of solution by OWASP members <br/> | ||
| + | - Go live! <br/> | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''Post July completion tasks''' <br/> | ||
| + | |||
| + | - Support for Microsoft office documents with macros and others<br/> | ||
| + | - Full support for community management (i.e. OWASP differentiated from other developer communities)<br/> | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''Background and Experience of project team''' <br> | ||
| + | |||
| + | Richard Conway has 13 years commercial development experience in messaging and financial/investment banking systems having managed teams to deliver complex Agile solutions. He has degrees and PGDip in computer science and another in physics (finishing 2009) and has taught at Westminster university and written 7 books 3 of which are on security related topics (and numerous articles). | ||
| + | |||
| + | Phil Potisk has an academic background from Graz university, degree and masters and is currently looking at doing a pHD in the UK all on computer science/information security. He has several years commercial experience all in the security space for major companies in Austria and the UK. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Both Richard and Phil have worked together for 4 years in the space of ePassports/smart cards where they have an impact on ICAO standards and have fulfilled consultancy and product development in the area of passport inspection, cryptography, ePassport/smart card protocols testing and more. They have a wealth of knowledge and experience in PKI and development of applications using secure hardware and cryptography. | ||
| + | |||
| + | == Lockpick == | ||
| + | *Mark Roxberry | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''Summary''' | ||
| + | |||
| + | Lockpick is an open source penetration testing project management tool. There are plenty of tools that do specific functions, or a range of technical functions (NMAP, Nessus). However, there are not many open source tools to help manage the scope of the testing a system. Lockpick will fill that role. When I start a penetration test, Lockpick will provide my checklists and script resources and update my tools. For intelligence gathering, Lockpick will let me create profiles for target companies and persons. I can shell out to my normal tool suite and organize my log files and other output with the tool. Eventually, I can use Lockpick to pull all of the testing data together and generate an executive summary and detail report with the logs and profiles for addenda. | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''Project Roadmap''' | ||
| + | |||
| + | April 2, 2008 - April 30, 2008 (Sprint 1) | ||
| + | *Architecture, technical design (use cases, db design) and UI design | ||
| + | |||
| + | May 1, 2008 - May 31, 2008 (Sprint 2) | ||
| + | *Project framework (modular design - use an dependency injection (IoC) architecture, so we can rip and replace components) | ||
| + | *GUI framework | ||
| + | *GUI for pen-test overview (use NIST or OSSTMM for process milestones) | ||
| + | |||
| + | June 1, 2008 - June 30, 2008 (Sprint 3) | ||
| + | *Competitive intelligence feature (Company and individual profile builder) | ||
| + | |||
| + | July 1, 2008 - July 31, 2008 (Sprint 4) | ||
| + | *Checklist and scripting repository feature (with rss synchronization feed) | ||
| + | (Unit Tests, Code, and QA) | ||
| + | |||
| + | July 15, 2008 | ||
| + | Project Status Report | ||
| + | |||
| + | August 1, 2008 - August 31, 2008 (Sprint 5) | ||
| + | *3rd Party tool integration (shell out and log management) | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''Project Wishlist''' | ||
| + | |||
| + | *Report generator (integrated with open office, google docs) | ||
| + | *OVAL (Open Vulnerability and Assessment Language) database reader | ||
| + | *Testing log GUI | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''Project Team''' | ||
| + | |||
| + | Mark Roxberry, CISSP, CEH, MCP - independent software vendor. I've been writing code since infancy. It would be great to have OWASP sponsor the project and give me the opportunity to create something that other testers can use. | ||
| + | |||
| + | == OWASP Live CD 2008 Project == | ||
| + | |||
| + | * Matt Tesauro | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''Introduction''' | ||
| + | |||
| + | The previous OWASP Live CD project distributions have laid a good foundation for the 2008 Project. I'd like to take the existing Live CD and further enhance it. I see the 2008 Live CD as filling the Web App Sec niche not the more general Pen Tester niche. I'd concede general Pen Testing to Backtrack [http://www.remote-exploit.org/backtrack.html]. However, Backtrack has a different audience and is not specifically tailored for web application security professionals. This is the role I think this Live CD could fulfill with great success. I'd like to take the OWASP Live CD 2008 Project in that direction and see the OWASP Live CD become to Web App Sec what Backtrack is to Pen Testing. | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''Proposal''' | ||
| + | |||
| + | I'd like to take the existing applications and documentation in the current Live CD and add significantly more tools and documentation specifically focused on Web application security. I think OWASP's Phoenix/Tools page [http://www.owasp.org/index.php/Phoenix/Tools] would be a good starting point for potential tools. I'd also like to use WASC [http://www.webappsec.org/] and ISECOM/OSSTMM [http://www.isecom.org/] as sources for material. | ||
| + | |||
| + | The project would first enumerate a list of tools to include on the CD where licensing, supported OS and space will determine what is included on the Live CD. After determining a reasonable list of tools, the next phase would be to create modules for the tools and merge these modules with the Live CD. Then documentation and tutorials would be added (also as space allows) followed by any remaining OWASP branding. Additional polishing could include pre-installation (license permitting) of the VMware tools. | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''Deliverables''' | ||
| + | |||
| + | April 2 to May 15, 2008 | ||
| + | * Enumerated tools and reference material for installation verifying that the software license allows permits distribution. | ||
| + | |||
| + | May 16 to July 4, 2008 | ||
| + | * Create modules for each tool and begin to merge the modules with the base distribution. | ||
| + | * Begin testing of the Live CD. | ||
| + | |||
| + | July 5 to August 31, 2008 | ||
| + | * Complete the merging of modules and install any remaining documentation. | ||
| + | * Further testing of the Live CD particularly installation of new/updated modules. | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''Challenges / Outstanding Issues''' | ||
| + | |||
| + | While the current Live CD is base on Morphix – a Knoppix derivative created to allow easy creation of custom Live CDs, I'm not sure it it provides the flexibility needed to keep the CD tools updated. While I'm fine with keeping the Live CD on Morphix, I also see value in switching to another distribution: SLAX. Here's the brief pros and cons of each as I see them. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Pros of Mophix: | ||
| + | * no change to current LiveCD - principally just updates to existing and augment. | ||
| + | * Modular Live CD | ||
| + | * Based on Knoppix which is the granddaddy of live CDs (tons of documentation) | ||
| + | |||
| + | Cons of Morphix: | ||
| + | * While modular, uses a modular structure which isn't compatible with other well established live CDs - particularly Backtrack | ||
| + | * Modules are not as granular as SLAX (lower ease of updating) | ||
| + | |||
| + | Pros of SLAX: | ||
| + | * Modular Live CD (more modular then Morphix though I'm more familiar with SLAX then Morphix from using/modifying Backtrack) | ||
| + | * Same modular format as Backtrack and other SLAX variants. This allows module sharing between OWASP and other live CDs | ||
| + | * As tools are updated, only the module for that tools would need to be updated - not the entire live CD. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Con of SLAX: | ||
| + | * Would have to re-do the work done for the current Live CD | ||
| + | |||
| + | As said above, I'm not sold on either distro but I do think going forward, the more granular modules of SLAX will allow for easier updates of the included tools and documentation. Backtrack is a good example of this. I think the migration would represent a short term loss for a long term gain. | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''A bit about me''' | ||
| + | |||
| + | I've been using Linux since somewhere around 1996 when I got my first “Mega Distro pack” which included 6+ distro CDs, a bumper sticker and a t-shirt for $29.95. I think it was in the RedHat 5.2 time frame. I've had Linux as my primary OS since 2000 and have used many, many different distros. Also, I am a RHCE (#803005588313799) as well as Linux+ certified so I believe I'm qualified the Linux aspects of the project. | ||
| + | |||
| + | I got started with creating static HTML pages in 1999 and my first job out of college was a Web application developer for an international telecom company in 2000. Later, I took a developer job at Texas A&M University and also taught Web application development courses at the undergraduate and graduate level. Next, I spent some time as a Pen Tester where I discovered WHAX, Auditor and Backtrack live CDs and realized how useful they can be. Currently, I work on Web Application Security for an agency with ~75 internally developed web apps and 500,000+ users. I'm involved in application development from preliminary design reviews to pre-production security testing. I also have a CISSP (Cert # 67636) and CEH (Certified Ethical Hacker) security certifications. I've been enjoying OWASP since I first discovered Web Goat (then at version 3.7) and thought it was high time I gave something back to OWASP. | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | == OWASP Education Project == | ||
| + | |||
| + | *Martin Knobloch | ||
| + | '''OWASP Education Project / OWASP Boot Camp''' | ||
| + | |||
| + | The project will continuously deliver education material about OWASP tooling and documentation. This aims to create an easy entrance towards understanding application security and usage of the OWASP tooling. By creating education documentation papers, screen scrape video courses and setting up an OWASP Boot camp, a controlled education process of a standardized quality can be created continuously. With the setup of a OWASP Boot camp, the OWASP word can be spread in a controlled manner and deliver high quality training., both inside and outside of the OWASP community. The OWASP Education Project will setup and standardize OWASP trainings manuals and materials to ensure a certain level of quality of the trainings. Trainings about the OWASP tooling and projects will have to be reviewed by the Projects. | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''Complexity - What is the project Complexity and Size? ''' | ||
| + | |||
| + | Deliverables to focus on are, in first place, to set up an OWASP Boot camp. For this the project will create a training and video (screen scrape) training material about Application Security basics, using the OWASP WebGoat and OWASP WebScarab tooling on the OWASP Top Ten vulnerabilities. Next, creating training material on the main OWASP Project's as the OWASP Guide and OWASP Testing Guide. | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''Member Value - How big is the potential added value to OWASP Members? ''' | ||
| + | |||
| + | The OWASP Education project ensures a common shared set of knowledge about application security in general and the OWASP tooling in detail. The OWASP Boot camp helps new OWASP members to get on track fast and on a guaranteed quality level. | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''Brand Value - How big is the potential added value to the OWASP Brand? ''' | ||
| + | |||
| + | The OWASP Education projects Boot camp deliverable can help to spread the OWASP word beyond the OWASP community. Holding OWASP Boot camps can generate additional venue. The OWASP Education project will extend the knowledge about the OWASP tooling and the usage of those. In the current discussion of the OWASP certification, the OWASP Education project can support and certify training. The OWASP certification can be supported by special OWASP Certification Boot camps. | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''On the Candidate: ''' | ||
| + | |||
| + | Past Work - Value of past contributions to OWASP Projects; previously, as OWASP On The Move project lead, I was involved in setting up the OWASP On The Move rules. I am involved in the Dutch local chapter inside the chapter board, focusing on the content, speakers and feedback of the local chapter meeting. On the AppSec Australia conference I was speaker on the subject on what to consider when implementing a Secure Development Process. On my daily job, being Software Architect at Sogeti Nederland B.V., I have set up a Secure Development Taskforce. I have succeeded to make Sogeti Nederland B.V. and member of the OWASP community. Sogeti sponsored previous local Dutch chapter meetings and my trip to Australia. The deliverables of the Sogeti Secure Development Taskforce (PaSS, Proactive Security Strategy) are given to the OWASP community, as we will continue to do in the future. | ||
| + | |||
| + | == Fortify Code Review Project == | ||
| + | |||
| + | * David Rook | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''Your educational and professional background: ''' | ||
| + | |||
| + | I have worked in IT for over 8 years now with 5 years Information Security experience. I have obtained and taught many IT certifications in my career so far. | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''Application security experience and accomplishments: ''' | ||
| + | |||
| + | Work experience as an Information Security Analyst implementing application security in a highly sensitive environment. I'm currently contributing to an OWASP project (Code Review guide) and spoken on the subject of Application Security at a developers conference. | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''Participation and leadership in open communities: ''' | ||
| + | |||
| + | As mentioned above I'm currently contributing to one other OWASP project. | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''The opportunity, challenges, issues or need your proposal addresses: ''' | ||
| + | |||
| + | My proposal is to help Fortify and OWASP achieve the goals set out in the objectives for this project. The project has the ability to deliver a clear guide on static analysis and subsequently how to add this into the SDLC. The auditing of open source software can help to enhance the security of this software and possibly improve its ability to increase its user base. | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''Milestones and objectives: ''' | ||
| + | |||
| + | Process all OWASP Java developments through the Fortify scanner | ||
| + | Review the output of the Fortify scans on the OWASP projects that have been submitted | ||
| + | Produce the first draft of the three documents that need to be delivered | ||
| + | Liaise with OWASP/major Java Open Source project contacts to involve them in reviewing the output of Fortify scans of their developments | ||
| + | Provide final documentation | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''Specific activities and who will carry out these activities: ''' | ||
| + | |||
| + | I will carry out all the activities for this project myself. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Research current methods of static analysis in the application security arena and combine this with my own knowledge. This research will allow me to define a workflow which illustrates how static analysis will be integrated into the SDLC. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Identify which OWASP applications have been submitted for analysis and identify which other projects can be scanned. I will contact the relevant project leads to get them to submit the projects for review. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Review the results of the scans and analyse any issues found. I will provide feedback on any issues found to the relevant project lead. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Identify major Open Source Java projects and liaise with these projects to involve them in scans of their code. We will provide feedback on the results and ensure that future code revisions are also scanned by the Fortify system. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Provide revised guides based on feedback from the draft documents and the use of the Fortify system. | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''Specific deliverables and a rough project schedule so we can track progress: ''' | ||
| + | |||
| + | The deliverables for this project would see me firstly provide draft guides once I have used the Fortify system to review any recently scanned OWASP projects. | ||
| + | |||
| + | I would also seek to involve major java Open Source projects in the Fortify project which will help the Fortify Scanner become part of many Open Source developments. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Providing report documents to the relevant OWASP project leads which would explain any issues found in the Fortify scan of their code | ||
| + | |||
| + | Deliver the final guides for review | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''Long-term vision for the project: ''' | ||
| + | |||
| + | I would see this project firstly serving as a focal point for anyone wishing to implement Static Analysis into their own SDLC. Secondly I see this project as a launching pad for the Fortify scanner to increase its use by Open Source projects. | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''Any other reasons why you and your project should be selected: ''' | ||
| + | |||
| + | I'm very passionate about Application Security and I want to use this passion to help the Application Security community. I think the project should be selected so that the objectives of both the OWASP and Fortify can be achieved. | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''Project Plan:''' | ||
| + | |||
| + | My project plan can be found here: http://docs.google.com/Present?docid=dcd4c73_0ghsncvcf&skipauth=true | ||
| + | |||
| + | == Source Code Review OWASP Projects == | ||
| + | * James Walden | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''Educational and professional background: ''' | ||
| + | |||
| + | I am an assistant professor of computer science at Northern Kentucky University, and I previously worked as a visiting assistant professor at the University of Toledo. Before entering academia, I worked for Intel as a software engineer for five years. I hold a Ph.D. in theoretical physics from Carnegie Mellon University. | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''Application Security experience: ''' | ||
| + | |||
| + | My primary area of interest in research and teaching is application security. I have worked with application security issues since 1993 when I was developing secure CGI scripts in perl at CMU, and much of my work at Intel involved application security. I have used Fortify's Source Code Analysis tool in my teaching and research since 2005, and I served as a technical reviewer for the book ''Secure Programming with Static Analysis'' by Brian Chess and Jakob West. | ||
| + | |||
| + | I have developed workshops on secure programming, software security, and web application security, including both slides and demonstration web applications, which I have taught to computer science faculty at conferences since 2005 and to software developers through my university since 2006. I have given many talks on application security during the last three years to local professional groups like IEEE, ISACA, and ISSA and at conferences such as the Ohio Information Security Conference and Recent Advances in Information Assurance, Network and Software Security 2007. | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''Open Communities: ''' | ||
| + | |||
| + | I have contributed to the OWASP Guide and OWASP Code Review Guide, and I participate in the OWASP Cincinnati chapter. I have also submitted a number of small patches to fix bugs in open source projects over the years. | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''Opportunity and Challenges''' | ||
| + | |||
| + | There will be other contributors to this project, including one professor and several students. Dr. Maureen Doyle will work with one student to develop and document the workflow to incorporate Fortify Java Open Source static analysis into the SDLC. Anticipated issues include detecting false positives that result from the analysis and reporting the security errors to the appropriate developers for future correction (e.g., through Bugzilla or similar system). It is uncertain how much of the workflow can be automated. The workflow documentation will require that static analysis be a part of the SDLC. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Dr. Doyle has twenty years of industry experience working with various development lifecycles and has implemented software processes at General Electric and Alphatech, Inc. Dr. Doyle keeps current on software development paradigms as part of her course preparation for graduate and undergraduate software engineering courses. Dr. James Walden, whose background is described above, will lead the auditing task and collaborate on the workflow development. | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''Milestones and Objectives''' | ||
| + | |||
| + | The objectives of this project are: | ||
| + | * Develop and document a workflow for open source projects to incorporate static analysis into the Software Development Life Cycle (SDLC). | ||
| + | * Apply the above workflow as a required step for OWASP projects. | ||
| + | * Aid in auditing select open source projects to create a baseline for comparing security amongst open source projects. | ||
| + | |||
| + | The milestones for this project are: | ||
| + | * '''Three projects''' selected for initial analysis by May 1. | ||
| + | * '''Project 1''' submitted to Fortify Java Open Review Project by June 1 | ||
| + | * '''Workflow''' sent out for review by June 1 | ||
| + | * '''Projects 2 and 3''' submitted to Fortify Java Open Review Project by July 1 | ||
| + | * '''Additional projects''' identified for analysis with the revised workflow by July 1. | ||
| + | * '''Workflow''' available at OWASP by August 15 | ||
| + | * '''Additional projects''' submitted to Fortify Java Open Review by August 15 | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''Project Schedule''' | ||
| + | |||
| + | * May 1, 2008: Team finalized, three projects selected for initial analysis. | ||
| + | * June 1, 2008: Team of workflow reviewers finalized, preliminary workflow sent out for review, project 1 analysis complete using initial workflow. | ||
| + | * July 1, 2008: Project 2 and 3 analysis completed, workflow finalized, additional projects selected for creating baseline. | ||
| + | * August 15, 2008: Analysis of projects for baseline security measures complete, workflow documented on OWASP web site. | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''Long Term Vision''' | ||
| + | |||
| + | We would like to analyze the classes of security bugs found through static analysis to determine if patterns exist, so that we could develop measures to prevent the introduction of such bugs into projects. We would also like to implement a security metrics collection process for projects, recording data on static analysis usage, number of security bugs, lifetime of security bugs, and so forth. | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''Supporting Information''' | ||
| + | |||
| + | Dr. Walden and Dr. Doyle bring a combination of industrial and academic experience to this task. They both regularly mentor undergraduate students working on research projects, and they have already recruited students to work on a project using static analysis tools. The funds offered by OWASP will be used solely to fund our undergraduate students. | ||
| + | |||
| + | == P022 - OWASP Access Control Rules Tester == | ||
| + | |||
| + | By Andrew Petukhov | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''Introduction:''' | ||
| + | |||
| + | I believe that web application business logic vulnerabilities will be under increasing attention in near future. Although input validation vulnerabilities (XSS, SQLI) are in overwhelming majority nowadays, many automated approaches have emerged that deal with them. On the contrary, there are no known approaches (and methodologies for security experts) to classify or even detect business logic vulnerabilities. Besides, business logic flaws usually expose web application to great risks (according to OWASP Testing Guide). My proposal is to create a systematic approach that addresses business logic vulnerabilities. | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''Project objectives and deliverables:''' | ||
| + | |||
| + | Project is intended two deliverables: research technical report (publication ready article) and an Access Control Rules Tester tool. | ||
| + | |||
| + | The research will be intended to answer the following questions: | ||
| + | * Is there a reasonable classification of business logic vulnerabilities? | ||
| + | * Is it possible to generalize some cases into methodology or even an algorithm for an automated tool? | ||
| + | * Is it possible to build precise access control matrix for a web application and how? | ||
| + | |||
| + | Access Control Rules Tester (AcCoRuTe) tool will be Java-based application. As proposed inP022, AcCoRuTe will have the following functionality: | ||
| + | * Site spider. Basic features: Javascript (and AJAX) is interpreted by Rhino in order to get more site links; forms are filled in by operator. | ||
| + | * Sitemap generator. Sitemap is presented to operator; he can make it more precise/complete. | ||
| + | * Sitemaps analyzer. This component intersects different sitemaps in order to determine possible flaws. The result is test case, which verifies, whether vulnerability really exists or not. | ||
| + | |||
| + | I am PhD student at Moscow State University. In 2007 I took part in OWASP Spring of Code on project "Python Dynamic Analysis". I have strong background in programming and I beleive that I also have creative approach to existing scientific problems. | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | == Python Static Analysis == | ||
| + | |||
| + | By Georgy Klimov | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''Introduction:''' | ||
| + | |||
| + | During 2007 Dmitry Kozlov, Igor Konnov and Georgy Klimov prototyped taint-style static analysis for Python web applications. This tool is based on Pixy project. It is able to find input validation security vulnerabilities in Python-based web applications. This tool is currently in alfa release. It supports limited subset of Python: functions, modules, classes and data structures, but not generators, comprehensions, lambda-functions etc. And it has support only mod_python web applications. | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | '''Project objectives:''' | ||
| + | |||
| + | The aim of this project is to bring this project to at least beta quality to become OWASP open source project: | ||
| + | * full language support, | ||
| + | * other Python frameworks support, | ||
| + | * analysis improvement, | ||
| + | * reporting capability, | ||
| + | * documentation, | ||
| + | * promotion materials: publication-ready article and presentation. | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | '''Future directions of development:''' | ||
| + | |||
| + | Integration of this tool into teachable static analysis workbench applied to SoC 2008 by Dmitry Kozlov and Igor Konnov. | ||
| + | Additional languages support. | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | '''Why should I be sponsored for this project:''' | ||
| + | |||
| + | I’m 5-th year graduate student at Moscow State University and my scientific work concern with static program analysis. I’m very good in programming Java and Python (this tool is written mostly in Java). This tool was written by me and my scientific advisors: Dmitry Kozlov and Igor Konnov. | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | ==P003/P013 - OWASP Application Security Tool Benchmarking Environment and Site Generator refresh.=== | ||
| + | submitted by Dmitry Kozlov (see below about project team) | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''Introduction''' | ||
| + | In my opinion it is not good idea to start two new different projects | ||
| + | concerning to Benchmarking Environment. OWASP already has "Insecure Web | ||
| + | App Project", Foundstone created couple of similar applications, our | ||
| + | group created similiar application in Python (by the way: Does OWASP | ||
| + | need it to be published?). OWASP SiteGenerator is another different tool | ||
| + | but very platform-bound. Moreover NIST is also working in this direction. | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''Project description''' | ||
| + | My idea is to split destination web application technology from the | ||
| + | three reusable libraries: library of navigational elements, library of | ||
| + | vulnerabilities and library of language constructs. Library of | ||
| + | navigational elements is required to assess spidering features and | ||
| + | library of language constructs is required to assess source code | ||
| + | scanners this constructs can be in programming language or preferable in | ||
| + | language-independent form of Abstract Syntax Tree. Navigation and | ||
| + | vulnerability libraries are independent from technology web application | ||
| + | built in. This make is possible to create web applications with similar | ||
| + | vulnerabilities in different technologies. | ||
| + | |||
| + | User can create target XML application configuration similar to | ||
| + | SiteGenerator's in terms of site structure, navigational elements and | ||
| + | vulnerabilities. After that web application can be generated using | ||
| + | technology specific generator. Generators can create source code or | ||
| + | binary application but not a stub like SiteGenerator. This allows static | ||
| + | and dynamic code analysis to be performed on web application and | ||
| + | penetration testing too. | ||
| + | |||
| + | I think this tool and components library should be platform-independent | ||
| + | unlike SiteGenerator. And only technology-specific generators may be | ||
| + | platform-dependent. Such technology-specific generators can be source | ||
| + | code generators or can be binary application template. | ||
| + | |||
| + | If you are interested in we can perform such project by our students | ||
| + | under scientific advisory by Dmitry Kozlov and Andrew Petukhov, but it | ||
| + | seems to me this tool will be delivered in about 6-7 month. During | ||
| + | SoC2007 it was about 7 month between start and finish of projects. | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | == Securing WebGoat using ModSecurity == | ||
| + | |||
| + | Submitted by Stephen Evans | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''Background:''' | ||
| + | ModSecurity is an open source web application firewall that can work either embedded in an Apache web server or as a reverse proxy. The new features in version 2.0 and version 2.5 (released in February 2008) allow for a highly configurable capability that can address vulnerabilities (e.g. discovered during black-box penetration testing) on a per-application basis. ModSecurity provides for free a broad set of generic Core Rulesets (http://www.modsecurity.org/projects/rules/) that cover areas such as protocol compliance, malicious client software detection, XML protection, error detection, and generic attack detection ("Detect application level attacks such as described in the OWASP top 10"). However, the Core Set rule documentation (see README in modsecurity-core-rules_2.5-1.6.0.tar.gz) cautions that since attackers may examine the freely-available core rules to get around them, some core rules should be viewed more as a "nuisance reduction" mechanism instead of a security mechanism. | ||
| + | |||
| + | The lessons in WebGoat 5.1 detail over 30 different types of attacks on the WebGoat application (see the WebGoat v5 User & Install Guide). | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''Purpose:''' | ||
| + | The purpose of my project is to create custom Modsecurity rulesets that, in addition to the Core Set, will protect WebGoat 5.1 from as many of its vulnerabilities as possible (the goal is 90%) without changing one line of source code. To ensure that it will be a complete 'no touch' on WebGoat and its environment, ModSecurity will be configured on Apache server as a remote proxy server. | ||
| + | |||
| + | For those vulnerabilities that cannot be prevented (partially or not at all), I will document my efforts in attempting to protect them. Business logic vulnerabilities will be particularly challenging to solve. | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | '''The opportunity, challenges, issues or need your proposal addresses:''' | ||
| + | ** Provides application-level protection for those web applications that cannot be touched | ||
| + | ** New custom rulesets can be added as new attack types are discovered | ||
| + | ** This solution is programming language and platform agnostic | ||
| + | ** With outside help from consultants, this solution can be used by companies that have zero knowledge of software security | ||
| + | ** A possible unintended side-effect: introduce software security awareness into an organization, which may lead to software security development lifecycle practices for future projects | ||
| + | ** An attempt will be made to address business logic vulnerabilities which will be a challenge | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | '''Schedule, tasks and deliverables:''' | ||
| + | |||
| + | April 01 to April 06: Set up and test the development environment. The initial Reverse Proxy server OS will be Kubuntu 7.10. | ||
| + | |||
| + | April 07 to May 04: Identify WebGoat vulnerabilities and exploitation methods. Publish to WIKI for review, feedback, and modification. | ||
| + | |||
| + | May 5 to May 25: Develop rulesets for 50% of the vulnerabilities, starting with the low-hanging fruit. Deliver user documentation. Publish progress to WIKI as each vulnerability is addressed. [Milestone 1] | ||
| + | |||
| + | May 26 to June 15: Develop rulesets for the 2nd 50% of the vulnerabilities. Publish progress to WIKI as each vulnerability is addressed. | ||
| + | |||
| + | June 16 to June 22: Test final rulesets and Modsecurity Reverse Proxy on 2 other Linux distros (Fedora Core and ???). | ||
| + | |||
| + | June 23 to June 29: Produce final rulesets and documentation. | ||
| + | |||
| + | June 30 to July 13: Peer review, feedback, modification, deliver final product [Project completion] | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | '''Future development:''' | ||
| + | ** Demonstrate the same capability for a vulnerable, well-known ASP.NET application such as Hacme Bank | ||
| + | ** Add custom rulesets that address attack types not represented in WebGoat but identified in the OWASP 2007 Top 10 (e.g. CSRF) or any newly-discovered attack types | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | '''Long term vision:''' | ||
| + | ** Instead of only protection mechanisms, add alerting and forensic capabilities (this functionality is presently available in ModSecurity) which would move closer to the goal of an application being self-defending | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | '''Proposed project reviewer:''' Dinis Cruz | ||
| + | Dinis seems to have a special passion for Web Application Firewalls. | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | '''Stephen’s background and experience:''' | ||
| + | ** BSc in Computer Science and Mathematics, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec | ||
| + | ** 20+ years software developer | ||
| + | ** 4 years “officially” intensive information security professional since getting CISSP and joining a Big Security Vendor | ||
| + | ** Well-rounded infosec experience in areas such as CERT, security product deployment and training, vulnerability threat management, incident handling/response, antivirus scan engine customization. | ||
| + | ** Started up Big Security Vendor’s Secure Application Services (as sole consultant) for APAC region | ||
| + | ** Technical lead for a large APAC government project, building a software package assessment framework and workflow application based on an excellent, mature proprietary pentesting methodology | ||
| + | ** Numerous pentests/security assessments/risk assessments, mostly in the government space | ||
| + | ** Several SDLC projects, including a current one with an APAC government agency as the software security consultant throughout the entire SDLC for a field service type of mobile application using WinCE 5 & C# | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | '''Participation and leadership in open communities:''' | ||
| + | A founding member of Singapore chapter of IASA (International Association of Architects); gave “Security throughout the SDLC” presentation at IASA regional conference in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, in 2006. | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | '''Any other reasons why you and your project should be selected:''' | ||
| + | ** This project is a huge “big-bang-for-the-buck” contribution from OWASP to the software development community | ||
| + | ** The results of this project, along with ModSecurity, can be a big aid to organizations that need a (free) Web Application Firewall to meet PCI-DSS requirements | ||
| + | ** I am very passionate about: | ||
| + | *** Making about 75% of the “security researchers” look for a new line of work | ||
| + | *** Altering the focus of software security from “audit mode” towards software security during the SDLC | ||
| + | *** Software security | ||
| + | |||
| + | == P006 - OWASP Corporate Application Security Rating Guide == | ||
| + | '''*Project Application submitted by: Parvathy Iyer''' | ||
| + | |||
| + | Educational and professional background: CIA, CISA with over seven years experience in information technology and application security audits. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Application security experience and accomplishments : I have experience in ensuring that equity application solution conforms to security compliance requirements of the stock exchanges and the Security Exchange Board of India. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Participation and leadership in open communities : Member of ISACA and IIA, NJ Chapters. | ||
| + | |||
| + | The opportunity, challenges, issues or need your proposal addresses : The project will be the first of its kind that I have ever attempted and in that sense its my first challenge. The project will help me organize and structure publicly available data that large companies will share of the lessons learned about how to organize an application security initiative, best practices for training and testing, and more. | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | Objectives or ways in which you will meet the goal(s) : Analysis of publicly available data such as interviews, presentations, briefings for details. The project will link to all source material used in creating the rating. The rating will involve application security and awareness training; defining security requirements and verification for each application; establishing a dedicated application team and process for responding to security issues and allocating points to each issues. | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | Specific activities and who will carry out these activities : Parvathy.N.Iyer will carry out the entire analysis and rating. Neal Kirschner, Director of IT services at Eisner LLP with over 20 years work experience will be the reviewer on the project. | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | Specific deliverables and a rough project schedule so we can track progress : A project update will be provided on May 31, 2008 and the project shall be completed by August 31, 2008. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Long-term vision for the project: The project will be used as a guide for rating applications. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Any other reasons why you and your project should be selected: I feel that I should be selected for the project is because this would be a fun challenge for me and also because I am competent and committed to doing this project. | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | Project Application submitted by: Parvathy Iyer | ||
| + | |||
| + | Current occupation: IT Audit- Senior, Eisner LLP | ||
| + | |||
| + | == P028 - OWASP UI Component Verification Project (a.k.a. OWASP JSP Testing Tool) == | ||
| + | Submitted by Jason Li | ||
| + | |||
| + | === Personal Background === | ||
| + | Jason is an Application Security Engineer at Aspect Security during which time he has performed code reviews, penetration testing and training at a variety of financial, commercial, and government institutions. He is a certified GIAC Secure Software Programmer in Java and before joining Aspect, he was a Java Software Developer and a Java course instructor for Johns Hopkins University. He also assisted Arshan Dabirsiaghi with the coding of OWASP AntiSamy. Jason received his Master's and B.S from Cornell University (both in Computer Science). He has recently completed the degree requirements for his Post-Master's in Computer Science with a concentration in Information Security, which will be conferred in May 2008 by Johns Hopkins University. | ||
| + | |||
| + | === Project Motivation === | ||
| + | Cross-site scripting is one of the most pervasive web application security vulnerabilities present in today's applications, ranking at the top of the most recent OWASP Top Ten (2007). Recently, UI frameworks have emerged that allow application developers to create web components quickly and effortlessly. Java EE facilitates this ability by providing JSP tags that can be conglomerated as a tag library, such as was done with Java Server Faces (JSF). These tags allow developers to create rich user interfaces by parameterizing attributes of the web component. With the advent of this design, a unique opportunity arises to prevent cross-site scripting. If tag libraries offered built-in protection from cross-site scripting, then using parameterized web components to prevent cross-site scripting could become analogous to using parameterized queries to prevent SQL injection. However, security is not always in mind when such tag libraries are developed and thus it is not clear which libraries, if any, offer such built-in protection. This project would allow developers to quickly determine the protection mechanisms provided by any tag libraries they develop or of any third-party tag libraries they are considering using for their application. This will enable a push to parameterize web components which will serve to make web applications safer. | ||
| + | |||
| + | === Objectives === | ||
| + | The goal of this project is to create an easy to use, freely available tool that can be used to quickly ascertain the level of protection that each component of a JSP tag library offers. This information can serve two purposes: | ||
| + | # It provides a means for projects to create a coding standard. By identifying which components are safe or unsafe, a project can establish a preference order of useable components. For those components identified as unsafe, extra security requirements can be imposed on any pages using those components | ||
| + | # It provides tag library providers development guidance. Providers can target security enhancements to the components that are most susceptible to cross-site scripting attacks. They can also use these results to demonstrate their performance relative to other competing tag libraries. It also provides feedback for developers that create small custom tag libraries for internal development usage. | ||
| + | Ideally, the input to the tool will be the Tag Library Descriptor file along with a compiled version of the tag library. The resulting output will be a report of all tags in the library and their associated attributes with annotations for each attribute indicating whether or not it safely handles tainted input. | ||
| + | Additionally, the framework for this tool should be robust enough to enable the functionality indicated by the future work section. | ||
| + | |||
| + | === Development Stages === | ||
| + | |||
| + | The following initial steps should be made to create a first run draft of the project: | ||
| + | * '''Identify or Create Tag Library Parser''': The first step of this project is to determine a way to parse tag libraries and instantiate tag objects for testing. The Java EE API includes interfaces to parse and instantiate JSP tags so an initial investigation into existing implementations of tag parsers may yield an adequate source. However, since the interfaces are specified as protected and application server implementation specific, the interdependencies may require the creation of such a parser from scratch | ||
| + | * '''Basic Test of Tags''': The second step is to use the parser and apply some basic initial test cases to test the protection of attributes from tainted input | ||
| + | * '''Design Report Format''': The third step is to tabulate the results and create a simple format to convey those results. | ||
| + | |||
| + | After this step, the project should be considered halfway towards its goals. Additionally, the following steps should be made to move towards project completion: | ||
| + | * '''Refine Tag Testing''': After initial proof of concept, significant effort should be made to vary the testing of tag attributes to give a reasonable level of assuredness regarding the accuracy of the results | ||
| + | * '''Refine Report Format''': Feedback should be solicited and improvements incorporated to the design of the report | ||
| + | * '''Documentation and Release''': Once test cases and report format have been improved, documentation for the project should be created and the project source code prepared for release. | ||
| + | |||
| + | === Future Vision === | ||
| + | While tag libraries offer a means to parameterize web components and potentially better protection from XSS, there are still applications that use raw JSPs and scriptlets. With the insight gained from generating test cases, the JSP Testing Tool should be enhanced to test not only pages using JSP tag libraries, but also basic JSPs as well. One possible strategy is to create a wrapper HttpServletRequest class that overrides methods to provide input directly from test cases generated from the earlier stages of this project. A similar wrapper HttpServletResponse class can then be used to test the results. The tool could then be used to quickly test the XSS protection level of any Java EE application that uses JSP technology. Unlike automated web scanners, this tool enhancement would have the benefit of internal insight to the application to determine injectable parameters. Additionally, this tool enhancement would be an improvement to static code analysis as it could reduce the number of false positives with the ability to invoke actual rendering of the HTTP response. | ||
| + | |||
| + | == OWASP Book Cover & Sleeve Design == | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''Book Cover Design Series Brief:''' | ||
| + | |||
| + | LXstudios has had the pleasure of speaking with Dinis Cruz about OWASP (book) publications. We discussed the current scenario and the potential for stronger OWASP brand identity across publication lines, and the packaging of these publications into book sleeves. We discussed the importance of this effort as OWASP is growing exponentially. OWASP produces many publications a year. Currently, the publications have cover designs and good content. The cover designs are all different. There is a lot of potential for these covers to look consistent from a brand perspective, and adding end-user value to the purchase of a book. There is also functional reason for the redesign, as Dinis would like to identify the different release versions of a book and it’s quality of content. As OWASP grows and produces more literature, a scalable cover design strategy must be employed so that the publications stay organized, easy to implement, easy to understand, increase brand identity, and sell. | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''Book Sleeve Design Brief:''' | ||
| + | |||
| + | Dinis and I also discussed the delivery of these books in professionally-produced book sleeves. This book sleeve would house between 6-8 OWASP publications and create an identity for a suite of books on a reader’s book shelf. As a reader’s collection of OWASP literature grows, the organization of these books comes into play. The other valuable reason to create a book sleeve is the individual and corporate membership. When these members buy into OWASP, the professional delivery of the publications is paramount. Bottom line -- in addition to functional book covers and securing shelf space -- OWASP has an increasing and critical need to look as good or better than other industry publications in circulation. | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''Deliverables:''' | ||
| + | |||
| + | * Goal A Book Cover Series: Develop a scalable book cover series strategy for the OWASP publications that communicates content in a clear, clever and provoking manner. The strategy is also to simplify the design process so subsequent publications can work off a template design – thus saving time and money (and increasing brand image). | ||
| + | * Goal B Book Sleeve: Develop a house to deliver the book series. The initial thoughts are around a chip-board produced book sleeve that works off the design cover strategy and can hold up to 10 publications. The actual size needs to be determined. | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''Why should OWASP invest in this project?''' | ||
| + | |||
| + | Many reasons. The two most important: | ||
| + | |||
| + | # Make the publication production process simpler and over time more cost effective for the OWASP team. As the organization is growing, members need to spend time doing what they do best. Recreating artwork and cover designs on the fly is not the best use of time and money. The current approach is also diluting/damaging the OWASP brand. | ||
| + | # Increase awareness of OWASP brand identity in the industry. As the OWASP organization continues to grow in size and value (monetary and value to the industry), there is an increasing and critical need to look as good or better than competitor and affiliate publications in circulation. A consistent approach to publications will increase brand recognition and create brand stability - increasing product and organization perceived, intrinsic, and actual value. | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | '''Proposed Design Budget''' | ||
| + | |||
| + | * '''Book Cover Series Design:$ 5,600 '''Design Development/Layout OWASP Brand Identity Book Cover Series; Layout 3 book covers in series identifying levels of quality “Release”, “Beta”, Alpha; 4th in series is “Bundle” - let’s discuss if this bundle would need it’s own identity or if it could be packaged in book sleeve; Image Research; Concept yields 3-4 ideas for presentation; Revisions; Production/Mechanicals - deliver high resolution book cover PDF files for OWASP implementation (through LuLu); Fee includes first 6 books; Project Management | ||
| + | ** Additional book cover high resolution PDF files, estimated: $ 325 (text and/or color revisions only) | ||
| + | ** Materials, proofs, storage media: $ 150 | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | '''Book Sleeve/Box Design: $ 3,360 ''' | ||
| + | |||
| + | * Book cover concept application to Box Sleeve; Box sleeve design construction; Prepare Mechanical files for box production; prepare graphic files for printed graphic wrap; Proof reviews; Project Management: | ||
| + | ** Materials, proofs, storage media: $ 10 | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''LXstudios inc ''' | ||
| + | |||
| + | [[http://www.lxstudios.com LXstudios]] inc provides competitive branding, corporate identity, collateral and web design solutions for technology, financial services, medical, and management consulting clients. Capabilities include, from concept through to production: | ||
| + | |||
| + | * Branding, Restructuring, Key Messaging | ||
| + | * Corporate Identity/Logos | ||
| + | * Collateral (direct mail, brochures, event materials, newsletters) | ||
| + | * Advertising | ||
| + | * Tradeshow Design and Support | ||
| + | * Web Design & Implementation/Development | ||
| + | * Original Illustration & Photography | ||
| + | * Electronic Presentation Media | ||
| + | * Media Relations with strategic PR affiliates | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | == OWASP Individual & Corporate Member Packs, Conference Attendee Packs Brief == | ||
| + | |||
| + | As OWASP increases to have more presence in the community, more and more people are realizing the benefits of the organization and are interested in becoming members. As OWASP reaches out to the community and continues to communicate it’s messages via conferences, more and more people are attending conferences. All of this visibility is driving a growing need for a stronger OWASP brand identity across individual member, corporate member and conference attendee audiences. The current scenario is a good start with premiums including pens, tshirts, sweatshirts and OWASP publications. How these items are packaged, delivered and managed will support our umbrella campaign strategy to: | ||
| + | |||
| + | * stay organized; | ||
| + | * easily implement (stay cost effective and produce easily) packs; | ||
| + | * increase OWASP brand identity; | ||
| + | * increase OWASP perceived, intrinsic, and actual value; | ||
| + | * increase memberships and conference attendance. | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | '''Individual/Member Packs, Detail & Deliverable:''' | ||
| + | |||
| + | The concept around the Individual and Member Pack is to deliver and house 6-7 OWASP book publications, Member card, Tshirt(s), Pens, USB, DVD and Welcome Letter/Card. We are hypothesizing all member kits are delivered in a Tote Bag, big enough to house a large book sleeve (10 inch x 10 inch x 10 inch) – although specifications are still rough and details need to be worked out. The other option is to shrink wrap book sleeves and other content (gracefully) and ship out to individual and corporate addresses not in totes. | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''Conference Attendee Packs, Detail & Deliverable:''' | ||
| + | |||
| + | The concept around the Attendee Pack is to provide fewer OWASP book publications (4-6), Tshirt, & Pen. We are hypothesizing all attendee kits are delivered in a Tote Bag. Specifications are still rough and details need to be worked out. We are researching bags with a look and feel that are as forward-thinking as OWASP. | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''Why should OWASP invest in this project?''' | ||
| + | |||
| + | # Enhance the value of individuals and corporations becoming OWASP members. Make the publication production process simpler and over time more cost effective for the OWASP team. As the organization is growing, members need to spend time doing what they do best. Procuring and creating materials on the fly is not the best use of time and money. The current approach could be stronger at supporting OWASP brand. | ||
| + | # Increase awareness of OWASP brand identity in the industry. As the OWASP organization continues to grow in size and value (monetary and value to the industry), there is an increasing and critical need to look as good or better than competitor and affiliates. A consistent and professionally-produced approach to member and attendee communications will increase brand recognition and create brand stability - increasing product and organization perceived, intrinsic, and actual value. | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | '''Proposed Design Budget''' | ||
| + | |||
| + | * '''Tote Bag''' - Procurement: Fees determined after quantity is established | ||
| + | |||
| + | * '''Member Cards: $ 840 ''' - Design Development/Layout OWASP Brand Identity to Member Cards; Color code; Revisions; Test sheets to OWASP; Production/Mechanicals - Project Management: | ||
| + | ** Materials, proofs, storage media: $ 35 | ||
| + | |||
| + | * '''Welcome Letter/Diecut Circle Cards: $ 840 ''' - Design Development/Layout OWASP Brand Identity to Welcome Letter/Card; Production/Mechanicals - Project Management: | ||
| + | ** Materials, proofs, storage media: $ 35 | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | '''LXstudios inc ''' | ||
| + | |||
| + | [[http://www.lxstudios.com LXstudios]] inc provides competitive branding, corporate identity, collateral and web design solutions for technology, financial services, medical, and management consulting clients. Capabilities include, from concept through to production: | ||
| + | |||
| + | * Branding, Restructuring, Key Messaging | ||
| + | * Corporate Identity/Logos | ||
| + | * Collateral (direct mail, brochures, event materials, newsletters) | ||
| + | * Advertising | ||
| + | * Tradeshow Design and Support | ||
| + | * Web Design & Implementation/Development | ||
| + | * Original Illustration & Photography | ||
| + | * Electronic Presentation Media | ||
| + | * Media Relations with strategic PR affiliates | ||
Latest revision as of 16:15, 5 December 2008
This page contains project Applications to the OWASP Summer Of Code 2008
- 1 A few notes
- 2 Applications - {Fill in below}
- 2.1 The Application Security Desk Reference - ASDR
- 2.2 OWASP Code review guide, V1.1
- 2.3 The OWASP Testing Guide v3
- 2.4 Code Crawler
- 2.5 The Owasp Orizon Project
- 2.6 Skavenger
- 2.7 OWASP .NET Project Leader
- 2.8 OWASP Backend Security Project
- 2.9 OWASP Classic ASP Security Project
- 2.10 Internationalization Guidelines and OWASP-Spanish Project
- 2.11 The Ruby on Rails Security Guide v2
- 2.12 OWASP Application Security Verification Standard
- 2.13 GTK+ GUI for w3af project
- 2.14 P025 OWASP Positive Security Project
- 2.15 P017 - OWASP AppSensor - Detect and Respond to Attacks from Within the Application
- 2.16 OWASP Interceptor Project - 2008 Update
- 2.17 SQL Injector Benchmarking Project (SQLiBENCH)
- 2.18 OWASP-WeBekci Project
- 2.19 Teachable Static Analysis Workbench
- 2.20 OpenPGP Extensions for HTTP - Enigform and mod_openpgp
- 2.21 OWASP AntiSamy .NET
- 2.22 Online code signing and integrity verification service for open source community (OpenSign Server)
- 2.23 Lockpick
- 2.24 OWASP Live CD 2008 Project
- 2.25 OWASP Education Project
- 2.26 Fortify Code Review Project
- 2.27 Source Code Review OWASP Projects
- 2.28 P022 - OWASP Access Control Rules Tester
- 2.29 Python Static Analysis
- 2.30 P003/P013 - OWASP Application Security Tool Benchmarking Environment and Site Generator refresh.=
- 2.31 Securing WebGoat using ModSecurity
- 2.32 P006 - OWASP Corporate Application Security Rating Guide
- 2.33 P028 - OWASP UI Component Verification Project (a.k.a. OWASP JSP Testing Tool)
- 2.34 OWASP Book Cover & Sleeve Design
- 2.35 OWASP Individual & Corporate Member Packs, Conference Attendee Packs Brief
A few notes
- If you want to apply for a SoC 2008 sponsorship you HAVE TO USE THIS PAGE for your application.
- See How To Participate for what to do once you completed your Application.
- Please remember that projects will be selected and funded based on how well they meet the Selection Criteria.
- Please see AoC 06 and SpoC 07 for examples of Applications.
- You can propose your project in any form you wish, but the best proposals will be well thought out, clear and concise, and reflective of your passion for the topic. We strongly suggest that you include this information in your proposal.
Applications - {Fill in below}
The Application Security Desk Reference - ASDR
- Leonardo Cavallari Militelli
- Proposal: Make OWASP ASDR Project a release quality document.
The ASDR is a reference volume that contains basic information about all the foundational topics in application security. It intends to replace and refresh Honeycomb Project with a new structure for articles and relationship between categories, thus making it a release quality doc.
This idea raised while finishing the Attack Reference Guide for OWASP Spring Of Code 2007, where it was identified that OWASP reference articles needed some special attention. Jeff Williams is totally supporting this project.
We already have defined which type of article we should include on Desk Reference, as follows:
- Road Map: A complete project roadmap can be found on OWASP_ASDR_Workplan. Basically, the following activities should be performed, some of them already started:
- Define articles templates for each reference type
- Define subcategories for articles classification
- Compile first DRAFT version of ASDR Book
- Articles development & Call for Volunteers
- Articles revision
- First version of OWASP ASDR book
OWASP Code review guide, V1.1
- Eoin Keary,
Code Review Guide Proposal:
Introduction:The code review guide is currently at version RC 2.0 and the second best selling OWASP book. I have received many positive comments regarding this initial version and believe it’s a key enabler for the OWASP fight against software insecurity.
It has even inspired individuals to build tools based on its information and I have convinced such people (Alessio Marziali) to open source their tool and make it an OWASP project.
The combination of a book on secure code review and a tool to support such an activity is very powerful as it gives the developer community a place to start regarding secure application development.
Proposal: I am proposing that I improve the code review guide from a number of aspects. This should place the guide as a de facto secure code review guide in the application security industry.
Additional and expanded Chapters:
Transactional analysis
Expand chapter.
Examples via diagrams.
Threat Modeling and Analysis
The approach to examining an application to be reviewed.
Focusing on areas of interest.
Example reports and how to write one
How to determine the risk level of a finding.
Automated code review
Code crawler documentation and usage.
Rich Internet Applications
Expanded chapters on Flash, Ajax.
The OWASP ESAPI (Enterprise Security API)
What it is, Why use it. What to review.
Code review Metrics:
How to compile, use and analyse metrics.
Rolling out metrics in the Enterprise.
Integrating Code review with an existing SDLC
Integration of Secure Code review with an existing SDLC.
Secure Code review roadmap definition.
Documentation requirements.
Scope definition.
SDLC steering comittee establishment.
Performace criteria, benchmarks and metrics.
Integration of SDLC results into key IT governance areas.
Critical success factors.
The OWASP Testing Guide v3
- Matteo Meucci
- The OWASP Testing Guide v2 was a great success, with thousand downloads and many many Companies that have adopted it as standard for a Web Application Penetration Testing.
Now it's time to begin a new project that is based on v2 but improve it and complete it.
In the OWASP Testing Guide v2 we have split the set of tests in 8 sub-categories:
* Information Gathering * Business logic testing * Authentication Testing * Session Management Testing * Data Validation Testing * Denial of Service Testing * Web Services Testing * AJAX Testing
The following are my thoughts about the new OWASP Testing Guide v3:
1) Authorization testing missing. As Jeff and Dave said many time before it's important to create a new category. 2) Information gathering is not a set of vulnerabilities --> not in report --> new category: Passive mode analysis 3) Infrastructural test --> new category 4) Web Services section needs improvement 5) AJAX Testing section needs improvement 6) New category: Client side Testing. AJAX and Flash Testing
- This document analyze the OWASP Testing Guide v2 vulnerabilities and a plan for create the new v3.
Code Crawler
- Alessio Marziali (aka nTze)
Description
This tool is aimed at assisting code review practitioners. It is a static code review tool which searches for key topics within .NET and J2EE/JAVA code.
The aim of the tool is to accompany the OWASP Code review Guide and to implement a total code review solution for "everyone"; Where "everyone" means "more" companies performing secure software activities.
Key areas of improvement:
Reporting
- PDF
- Microsoft Office Compatible Word Document
- HTML
Scanning
- Multiple File scanned at the same time
-- Open Microsoft Visual Studio's Solutions
Bigger Database
Which will provide more information about the threats such vulnerability type (XSS,SQL Injection, Remote File Inclusion etc).
Security Software Life Cycle
A feature that will let you save the threats for each project/document, so the reviewer can check how the development is going from a “security prospective” during the entire software lifecycle.
Improvement of the code scan system.
The Owasp Orizon Project
- Paolo Perego (aka thesp0nge),
- The Owasp Orizon Project,
Introduction
The Owasp Orizon Project born in 2006 in order to provide a framework to all Owasp projects developing code review services.
The project is in a quite stable stage and it is usable for Java static code review and some dynamic tests against XSS. Owasp Orizon includes also APIs for code crawling, usable for code crawling tools.
Milk project is a java code review tool I'm writing using Orizon as background engine. Its goal is to show engine capabilities.
Objectives and deliverables
- plugin architecture for static code review library: this planned feature will be announced (hopefully, if my CFP will be accepted) to next Owasp European App conf.
- starting C# support
- upgrade from Alpha quality project to Beta quality project in accord to Owasp Project Assessment criteria
Why I should be sponsored for the project
Owasp Orizon is the first Owasp project I'm involved in. I'm also contributor of Owasp Italian chapter managed by Matteo Meucci and I'm talking at various speeches about application security and safe coding best practices.
I'm a security consultant working in ethical hacking and we're approaching code review and safe topics right now. I'm a developer too so I understand also the "dark side" of the problem developing code with security in mind.
I work using the "release early release often" paradigm so to be concrete and let other people having something usable to work with.
In the last year Owasp Orizon evolved a lot with a good static code review engine and a lot of code was written to give Owasp guys the best framework as possible to be used for writing code review tools. I hope to pursuit my goals again with SoC 2008.
Skavenger
- Matthias Rohr
Introduction
Skavenger is a web application security assessment toolkit which arised from many years of professional experience in the web application assessment field and is the result of nearly one your of work.
It passively analyzes traffic logged by various MITM proxies (such as WebScarab and Burp) as well as other sources (like Firefox's LiveHTTPHeader plugin) and helps to identify various kinds of possible vulnerabilities (such as XSS, CRLF injection, an insecure session management and several kinds of information disclosure). Skavenger's modular design allows the integration of custom scanning modules without any knowledge about the tool at all.
Skavenger is completely written in Perl and can be downloaded from: https://sourceforge.net/projects/skavenger/
Objectives and deliverables
Here are some ideas:
- A GUI to monitor and analyze scanning results
- More sophisticated scanner modules (e.g. for better backend identification and more platform specific tests)
- Database integration
- API's to integrate modules in other languages (such as Python or Java).
- Better source integration with custom Firefox, Burp or (of course) WebScarab plugins
OWASP .NET Project Leader
- Mark Roxberry
Project Proposal
This proposal is to request approval for leading the OWASP .NET project. The project will contain information, materials and software that are relevant to building secure .NET web applications and services. The goal of the project is to provide deep content for all roles related to .NET web applications and services including:
- Architectural guidance
- Developer tools, information and checklists
- IT professional content (for those that deploy and maintain .NET websites)
- Penetration testing resources
- Incident response resources
The OWASP .NET Project Leader will actively recruit .NET contributors, including personnel from Microsoft, but others throughout the .NET ecosystem. Including experts from communities from large companies to ISVs, from enterprise architects to ALT.NET developers will be important for the overall reach of the OWASP .NET project. Other communities to consider include developers who use Mono (.NET for Linux), including Moonlight (Silverlight for Linux).
The OWASP .NET Project Leader will actively contribute to the OWASP projects that require .NET resources, by recruiting resources or contributing to the project.
Deliverables
April 2, 2008 - May 3, 2008
- Project site layout reorganization
- Presentation materials for OWASP chapters for integrating the OWASP .NET project tools and references into a project life cycle
- Bullet points for community and media outreach plans
April 13, 2008 - May 16, 2008
- Community outreach - contact .NET user groups, OWASP chapters to get feedback about tools and references that are needed for security in their fields of expertise. Distribute materials for integrating OWASP .NET into their project plans and toolboxes.
- Media outreach - contact .NET media resources to talk about the .NET project and request content and contributors
- Start a special projects section for emerging projects in the .NET space, including Silverlight (Moonlight), WPF XBAP applications, Windows Communication Foundation, ADO.NET Data Services, Enterprise Library 4.0, Policy and Dependency Injection, Agile methodologies.
May 17, 2008 - June 14, 2008
- Reach out to other SoC .NET projects, try to find resources if the projects need them.
- Contribute to other SoC .NET projects, where needed.
- Gather feedback and follow up from first round of outreach effort.
June 15, 2008
- Status report for Project
June 16, 2008 - August 31, 2008
- Expand community and media outreach efforts.
- Continue to recruit and help other OWASP projects with resources.
- Update promotional materials to include emerging projects.
August 31, 2008
- Retrospective of the first 5 months of the OWASP .NET Project.
Long Term Vision
The OWASP .NET Project will be a valuable resource for securing .NET applications and services. I want people to think of this project first when they need to gather information or find tools for designing, developing, maintaining, pen-testing software developed with .NET. This project will be the hub for all .NET security resources, and of course with content created and maintained by the Open Source community.
Why I should be sponsored for the project
I have previously contributed to the OWASP Test Guide v2 project, providing content and reviewed content. I have used the OWASP Top 10 to teach developers about vulnerabilities in web applications and the OWASP WebScarab tool for vulnerability analysis. As a security practictioner, I care about the OWASP mission and I want to contribute to securing the Internet for everyone.
I have 15 years of technical leadership experience using Microsoft technologies. I have lead software development teams as a technical lead, lead developer and architect on small and large projects. I am a Certified Information Systems Security Professional (CISSP) and a Certified Ethical Hacker (C|EH). I am on top of current trends and I am required to be up to speed regarding .NET web development and security. I am personally interested in providing security resources to .NET developers globally, specific and applicable to their projects.
OWASP Backend Security Project
- Full name: Carlo Pelliccioni
- Project: OWASP Backend Security Project
- Project description:
- OWASP Backend Security Project is a new project created to improve and to collect the existant information about the backend security.
- The project is composed by three sections (security development, security hardening and security testing).
- The aim is to define the guidelines for the companies and IT professionals working in the security field into processes development and back-end components management/testing in the enterprise architecture.
- Objectives:
Overview Create a section with an introduction about the project (high-level description) explaining the main goals.
Development Include the writings already existant in OWASP wiki concerning PHP, JAVA and ASP.NET and extend the projects' sections with new contents.
Hardening Create new guidelines about the dbms hardening
Testing Include the writings already existant in OWASP wiki about security testing. Create new articles about security testing.
OWASP Classic ASP Security Project
- Juan Carlos Calderon
Executive Summary
I am interested in making P018 - OWASP Classic ASP Security Project happen, Classic ASP 2.0 and 3.0 applications are still largely used as this technology is more than 10 years old and was largely used. there are thousands of sites on the wild that need guidance on the security arena. This is where OWASP can come up and provide help for “making the Web a better place” and continue spreading the word on security. I have always be a passionate of the technology (regardless of its inconveniences such as being old and DLL-hell prone) and I am really exited on the idea of sharing my knowledge of this area to the world and what best that though OWASP.
Objectives and Deliverables
Create a secure framework for Classic ASP application by complementing existing OWASP projects with documentation for this particular technology and the creation of security libraries. More specifically:
- Creation of a Common Object Repository for ASP applications based on OWASP ESAPI Project including objects and/or references to libraries for security applications all this aligned with OWASP Top10 and OWASP Guide .
- Create Documentation aligned to OWASP Code Review Project Checklist providing additional technology-specific checks.
- Addition of expression for Code Review Tool to support Classic ASP applications.
- Implementation of Version 1 of Stinger for ASP either by using an installable COM library or ISAPI.
- This same module will compliment the OWASP Validation Documentation Project.
Why should I be sponsored for the project?
I have 10 years of experience on Web technologies. During 8 years I have performed and leaded hundreds of Security Source Code Reviews and Black box testing on Web Applications. On my current job I lead 30 people in diverse locations all of them working on the Application Security arena, so I am accustomed to execute and deliver.
Also I’ve had close contact with OWASP since 2005 [1] by making possible the translation of OWASP Top 10 2004 [2] and OWASP Testing Guide V1.17 [3] to Spanish.
Internationalization Guidelines and OWASP-Spanish Project
- Juan Carlos Calderon
Executive Summary
The main goal of OWASP is to spread the word about security (“Our mission is to make application security "visible," so that people and organizations can make informed decisions about application security risks.”) and OWASP has done great work so far :). And now it’s time for a next big step.
The number of native and secondary speakers in the world for Chinese, Spanish, French, Russian, Arabic and Indi languages are estimated in similar number to English speaking or even more (Some References at Ethnologue, Encarta, Wikipedia). I think is a good time for OWASP to reach those that do not speak English to have full access to all the OWASP materials, not just a couple of documents.
OWASP, while open to translations, do not have clear guidelines on how to translate OWASP contents and (AFAIK) there is no multi-language support in OWASP.org site. This is understandable as there is no formal project for internationalization so far.
Oportunity and Effort
This is great opportunity to make Spanish the first language on which the OWASP site and documentation is fully translated and at the same time share the experience with other people interested in the same objective, Bring OWASP to the world. And this is something I’ve being pushing for some time ago and that could be possible “at once” via SoC 2008.
I understand this is significant effort so to have it done I will count with the help of 6 people (friend of mine, all of them Security auditors with excellent English level) plus a few well known contributors from OWASP-Spanish effort, so the founding will be divided among the people involved in the same proportion of the work they do for the completion of this effort. This, to encourage delivery.
Objectives and Deliverables
- Team up with Larry Casey to implement Multilanguage support in OWASP.org Mediawiki.
- General Guidelines on minimum/recommended requirements to start a new language translation for OWASP Document and Site Pages
- General Guidelines on minimum/recommended requirements to implement internationalization and localization (i18n) on OWASP Software
- Full translation to Spanish of all the release-level document projects. Those are:
- Top 10 2007
- Guide 2 (Already translated)
- Testing Guide (Already Translated)
- Legal
- FAQ
- Full Translation of major sections of OWASP Site
- Project Main Pages (Release, Beta and Alpha levels for both documents and tools projects)
- Principles
- References Section
- Conferences
- News (Those currently displayed in OWASP site)
- About OWASP
- Evaluation of Spanish translation approach for WebGoat and WebScarab and delivery of this document to Bruce and Rogan for possible implementation in near future.
- Leverage for deploy of es.owasp.org, the domain already exists but is not redirecting correctly.
- Create a Communication strategy to help and keep track on new pages or changes in significant pages so all the translations are in sync.
Out of Scope
Translation of the following sections are NOT in Scope
- Local Chapters Pages
- Presentations
- Conferences
- Videos
- Blogs
- All the projects deliverables in Alpha and Beta Stages
- All the documentation “on development” like Guide Version 3.0
- Translation of Pages, documentation or tools to other language other than Spanish according to the stated in above section.
Why should I be sponsored for the project?
I’ve being part of contributions to OWASP documents on the translation arena since 2005 [4], a few of them by making possible the translation of OWASP Top 10 2004 [5] and OWASP Testing Guide V1.17 [6] to Spanish. It is time to make the full job done :).
I have 10 years of experience on Web technologies. During 8 years I have performed and leaded hundreds of Security Source Code Reviews and Black box testing on Web Applications. On my current job I lead 30 people in diverse locations all of them working on the Application Security arena, so I am accustomed to execute and deliver.
The Ruby on Rails Security Guide v2
Heiko Webers
The last security guide for Rails [7] was a great success, with a lot of more secure web applications and continued awareness in the community of security issues. The Ruby on Rails Security Project [8] is the one and only source of information about Rails security topics, and I keep the community up-to-date with blog posts and conference talks in Europe. The Guide and the Project has been mentioned in several Rails books and web-sites.
Version 1 of the Ruby on Rails Security Guide was sponsored by the SpoC 07, set the standard for OWASP programming language specific guides in terms of the topic outline and has been published as a book [9]. Nevertheless I'm convinced that a more compact design and a "question-and-answer" style of writing will reach an even larger audience. Of course the new Guide will still include answers to the OWASP Top Ten security vulnerabilities.
A lot has changed since the publishing of the first Guide. Some new security holes have been found, there are new advises and most importantly Rails version 2.0 has been released. The new Ruby on Rails Security Guide aims at providing an up-to-date coding and configuration guide for the Rails community.
In the new Rails Security Guide I'd like to
- update the entire book to match Rails 2.0
- cover new topics, including, but not limited to:
- Intranet and administration interface security,
- phishing,
- real-world attack situations,
- short excursus on server monitoring,
- the new CookieStore session management,
- vulnerabilities in popular plug-ins,
- denial-of-service attacks
- cover all OWASP Top Ten security vulnerabilities
- a more compact writing style, more examples and "questions-and-answers"
- introduce the OWASP and Rails security to a greater audience
OWASP Application Security Verification Standard
- Mike
OWASP Application Security Verification Standard Proposal
Educational and professional background
The applicant is a hands-on senior professional services manager with a trademark of developing creative solutions to complex application security-related technical problems.
Application security experience and accomplishments
The applicant has a background in trusted product evaluation:
- CC evaluation
- CC evidence development, including operating system test code development
- CC project management
- TCSEC evaluation
- TCSEC project management
- TEF management
- CCTL management
The applicant also has a background in security-related software development and integration:
- PKI toolkit development
- PK-E application integration
- Secure web portal application development
- Secure web portal integration
- Secure instant messaging application development, including patents
The applicant also has a background in cryptomodule testing:
- FIPS 140 evaluation
- FIPS 140 evidence development
Participation and leadership in open communities
The applicant does not have experience in contributing to open communities.
The opportunity, challenges, issues or need your proposal addresses
OWASP is looking for a commercially-workable open standard for performing application security verification efforts. The problem is that there is a huge range in the coverage and level of rigor available in the market, and consumers have no way to tell the difference between someone just running a grep tool, and someone doing painstaking code review and manual testing. So, a standard is needed.
Objectives or ways in which you will meet the goal(s)
The applicant’s proposal will address the above challenges as follows:
- The applicant will define an evaluation framework that may be used to conduct OWASP Application Security Verification Standard certifications.
- The applicant will define an OWASP Application Security Verification Standard which defines levels that applications may be certified against.
Specific activities and who will carry out these activities
The applicant will carry out these activities. Please see below for a proposed list of specific deliverables.
Specific deliverables and a rough project schedule so we can track progress
The applicant proposes the following deliverables:
- Scheme Overview document. This will define the overall framework with roles, responsibilities, and processes.
- Evaluation and Certification document. This will describe the evaluation and certification process.
- Conditions for the Use of Trademarks. This will describe OWASP’s name, logo, and certificate may be used and referenced.
- Evaluation Report Content Requirements. This will describe the content requirements of evaluation reports.
- OWASP Application Security Verification Standard. This will define the levels that applications may be certified against.
- OWASP Application Security Verification Standard Appendix A. This will define the required content of the OWASP Application Security Verification Standard Security Policy.
- Policy Letter #1. Acceptance of Security Policies into OWASP Evaluation This will define the requirements to be listed as in evaluation on the OWASP web site.
The applicant proposes the following rough project schedule:
- 2nd April. Project kickoff.
- 15th June. Alpha Quality drafts of Scheme Overview document and of OWASP Application Security Verification Standard document completed.
- 31st August. Project completion. Beta Quality drafts of all documents completed.
Long-term vision for the project
The long-term vision for the project is to normalize the range in the coverage and level of rigor available in the market when it comes to performing application security verification.
Any other reasons why you and your project should be selected.
The applicant has a uniquely-qualified perspective given his experience with TCSEC, TTAP, CC, FIPS 140-1, and FIPS 140-2 evaluation programs, and his real-world perspective as a developer and integrator of security-related applications.
GTK+ GUI for w3af project
Facundo Batista
Your educational and professional background
I'm Electronic Engineer with a Master in Engineer Innovation in Bologna University, Italy. I live in Buenos Aires, Argentina, and love reading books, playing tennis, and programming Python.
I worked in a mobile company for six years, in the Network Management department, then I was Chief Developer of a Mobile Content Provider, and now I'm Solution Architect in Multimedia & Systems Integration in Ericsson. Also I was professor in several universities, high schools and other institutions.
Application security experience and accomplishments
None, more than working in w3af. However, my proposal here is not related to the security part of the product, but to its graphical interface and usability.
Participation and leadership in open communities
I'm very involved in the free software and open source community. I'm a Python Core Developer and member of the Python Software Foundation by merit. I have a long history of talks given in several international (PyCon, EuroPython) and national (a lot!) conferences. I also teach Python in educational institutions, enterprises and as a private instructor. I founded Python Argentina, the national users groups, and I'm a very active member of it.
I also lead other open source projects (SMPPy, SiGeFi, etc.) and particpate in others (Docutils, w3af itself, etc.).
The opportunity, challenges, issues or need your proposal addresses
My main objective is to minimize the effort and learning curve of using w3af, providing a very usable graphical interface.
Note that as the interface is cross platform, being usable also in the win32 environment, it will help to popularize the w3af project.
This will allow users without information security knowledge to verify that their web applications are correctly programmed and configured.
Specific activities and who will carry out these activities
I will carry the following activities, detailed later in smaller steps:
- Design and code new windows and interfaces to increase the functionality of the project.
- Tuning of the process workflow, allowing a more intuitive way of working.
- Visual polishing for a more pleasant and intuitive tool.
- Usability tests and improvements.
Specific deliverables and a rough project schedule so we can track progress
New features implemented in the pyGTK user interface:
- Local proxy to trap and modify requests and responses sent from a browser.
- Manually send a request and analyze the response.
- Manually create a fuzzed requests based on tokens, so user can construct easily differents HTTP request with a regex-like semantics.
- Wizard to perform a vulnerability assessment.
- Graphical display of site map and vulnerabilities.
- Reload a plugin after its edited from within the pyGTK user interface.
- Embebed tool to encode/decode URL/Base64 and to hash sha1/md5.
- HTTP response side by side content compare.
Usability improvements in the pyGTK user interface:
- Meetings with a usability expert that the w3af team leader has already contacted and worked with.
- Kill all pending bugs and make a stable release.
Documentation:
- Users guide for the pyGTK user interface.
- Help system for the GUI itself
Long-term vision for the project
To provide the web application security community with a stable and fully featured framework to perform all the tasks included in a penetration test from within the project.
Any other reasons why you and your project should be selected
w3af is one of the most active web application security projects; the community that supports it is growing and we need the support of already established organizations like OWASP to keep working at the rate that we want to.
P025 OWASP Positive Security Project
by Eduardo Vianna de Camargo Neves
Executive Summary
A common approach on most companies is to increase the protection of their assets after the occurrence of a considerable impact. However some companies learned that a positive approach on IT Security is most effective and can reduce the financial costs on responses to security incidents. Benchmarking the application security practices on the corporate world will allow us to understand what steps are required to keep the IT environment protected, using this knowledge to support the development of a campaign to spread a positive security posture in the market. The liaison with companies that maintain good security practices will help to start this initiative from a higher degree and involve several actors on the security stage for the same direction to a market were security is understood as a business value.
Approach
Assessing results from the Corporate Application Security Rating Guide Project and other public sources will be used to support the development of the Positive Security Project with facts from a real analysis.
Benefits
The whole community will be benefited from this initiatives. With the adequate support from OWASP to maintain the project active and liaise with big players on the market, we can expect the following:
• The community will receive a guide to practice the "Positive Approach" that will allow them to compare their own security practices within the market. As this will be a public document, suppliers and buyers worldwide will share the same information allowing them to adequate the expectations on the usage of security services and tools.
• Compliance and alignment with Positive Approach can be used as a marketing tool by the companies, allowing them to sell security as a business value and avoiding the old-fashion and inadequate FUD approach.
• The knowledge and relationship developed during the development will support the Positive Security Project with real information, increasing the credibility of the initiative for the market.
• The Security Rating Guide and the Positive Security Project can be walk in parallel, merging their information to support a concise and continuous marketing campaign to encourage a positive approach on the market.
• As an open community free from commercial pressures, OWASP can use both projects to support the evaluation of security products for the market, allowing the organization to receive profits from these services and support current and future projects.
Summarized Work Breakdown Structure (WBS)
All the activities will be leaded by Eduardo V. C. Neves, which will be responsible as a single point of contact with the sponsors and to manage a team of compromised volunteers from OWASP community and participants from security communities and associations (i.e. ISSA, SANS and ISC2).
The activities will be carried on WBS summarized bellow. Dates presented should be considered as deadlines for the activities:
• Criteria establishment and definition of the marketing material and support documents (April 11)
• Approval of marketing templates for Positive Security Project (April 25) (1)
• Development of the Positive Security Project material (i.e. blog and marketing sheets) (May 30)
• Liaison with the OWASP Members and analyzed companies to present the project and negotiate their participation as supporters, sponsors or contributors. (June 27)
• Update on Positive Security approach deliverables(July 4)
• Presentation of the Positive Security Project approach on the market (July 31) (2)
• Conference calls with team members to evaluate the results of the initiatives in all countries and produce project´s documents (i.e. lessons learned, update on marketing material and evaluation of alternative approaches for the future steps). (August 15)
• Prepare project documentation and present to the OWASP community on the web site (August 31)
(1) Support from OWASP Foundation and community are required to evaluate adequate marketing templates and translate original documents for their own languages
(2) Support from OWASP community is required to spread the word on all countries were OWASP members are located.
Project Control
The project will be managed following PRINCE2 Process Model and all control documents published for the OWASP community. The following mandatory project control documents are planned:
• Project Initiation Document: To document project´s background, definition, objectives, approach, etc.
• Communication Plan: To assure that OWASP Community are being continuous communicated about project status and deliverables achievement.
• Highlight Report: To provide the OWASP Community with a summary of the project status, progress and potential problems or areas where help may be required.
• End Project Report: To present project achievements. Should be considered the final project report.
More documents may be included during project development to support the control and assure a high quality level (i.e. issue log, project approach).
Long Range Plan
The project should be used as a tool to support efforts to encourage and make the positive approach a reality on the IT Security field. These initiatives shall be supported by OWASP as long term plans and grow to a continuous world-wide campaign in this direction that must achieve big players on the market and be recognized by the community as a tool that must be used to evaluate security enabled companies and products.
Why me?
Can be me, you or anyone that carries this project in a professional fashion and assure that all deliverables are being achieved. The most important parts is to make it happen, talk and get the support from reputable associations and large companies (OWASP Members are a good start) and lead it as a long range responsibility.
I am running to win this project because I believe in all of this. I see both as very valuable initiatives that can help companies to make more business; people to get more jobs and the whole community to win in a scenario where our contributions on the security market are recognized as business tools.
About me
Information Security professional and enthusiastic with 15 years dedicated to achieve expressive results in the areas of IT, Information Security, Compliance and Project Management. A CISSP in good stand and Officer at the ISSA Brazilian Chapter, my professional career gave me extensive knowledge in several fields of Information Security with accumulated experience at consulting firms, as CSO at a world player company on consumer goods market and now as an entrepreneur at Latin American market.
Application security experience and accomplishments
My work experience is on Security Management, Risk Assessment, Business Continuity and Disaster Recovery, Security Awareness and other managed-related fields on our industry. I don’t have hands-on experience on application security and this is the main reason why I am running to be qualified on the project described bellow, where I believe that my skills can be used to achieve an excellent result for the community.
Participation and leadership in open communities
• Member of OWASP Brazil where I made some small contributions in a recent past.
• Member of ABNT/CB-21/SC02 committee, Brazilian ISO representative for 27001 and 17799 standards
• Officer of ISSA Brazil Chapter where I am responsible for the South Region and as the editor of Antebellum, the ISSA Brazil Journal
• Founder and member of GISI-PR, an open community focused on discuss and promote Information Security initiatives within Paraná State, Brazil
P017 - OWASP AppSensor - Detect and Respond to Attacks from Within the Application
Name
Michael Coates
Project
P017 - OWASP AppSensor - Detect and Respond to Attacks from Within the Application
The opportunity, challenges, issues or need your proposal addresses,
As critical applications continue to become more accessible and inter-connected, it is paramount that the information be protected. We must also realize that our defenses may not be perfect. Given enough time, attackers can identify security flaws in the design or implementation of an application. In addition to implementing layers of defense within an application, it is critical that we identify malicious individuals before they are able to identify any gaps in our defenses. The best place to identify malicious activity against the application is within the application itself. Network based intrusion detection systems are not appropriate to handle the custom and intricate workings of an enterprise application and are ill-suited to detect attacks focusing on application logic such as authentication, access control, etc. The application itself is the best place to identify and respond to malicious activity. This project will create the framework which can be used to build a robust system of attack detection, analysis, and response within an enterprise application
Objectives or ways in which you will meet the goal(s),
I plan to use a methodical approach throughout the creation of this resource. I will reference my own professional experience, OWASP resources, ESAPI, and academic materials to identify a robust set of potential attacks and identification methods. Thresholds will be recommended for each of the detected attacks. Each recommended threshold value and response recommendation will be accompanied with additional information to describe the purpose of the threshold and recommendation. This additional information will allow the reader to determine if the threshold is appropriate for their implementation.
Specific activities and who will carry out these activities,
I will complete the following activities: 1. Identify and define attack patterns against applications 2. Document points of detection within the application for the attack patterns & identify key information to log 3. Create thresholds for generating security alerts 4. Define recommended response actions for the security alerts
Specific deliverables and a rough project schedule so we can track progress,
April 2, 2008 - Project Begins
April 2, 2008-April 12, 2008 - High level planning & design
April 12, 2008-May 1, 2008 - Identify and define attack patterns against applications
May 1, 2008-June 1, 2008 - Document points of detection within the application for the attack patterns & identify key information to log
June 1, 2008-June 13, 2008 - Peer Review & Revisions
June 15, 2008 - Status Report
June 16, 2008-Aug 15, 2008 - Create thresholds for generating security alerts
June 16, 2008-Aug 15, 2008 - Define recommended response actions for the security alerts
Aug 16, 2008-Aug 30, 2008 - Peer Review & Revisions
Aug 31, 2008 - Project Complete
Long-term vision for the project,
1. I’d like to include a tiered type approach of thresholds and responses. This is would be similar to the approach used by FISMA of defining different controls for High, Medium, and Low systems.
2. Building on item #1, I want to eventually include a system which lets the user provide information about their system. This information could include rating or prioritizing different security concerns. a customized set of monitoring points, thresholds and response actions can be recommended for the application based on the provided data.
About Me
Education & Professional Background
Masters of Science in Computer, Information and Network Security – DePaul University (Expected Graduation 2009) Bachelor of Science in Computer Science – University of Illinois Extensive experience in conducting black and white box security reviews of complex applications and networks for major financial organizations and international telecoms. I also have experience working as the primary investigator of attacks against a multi-national organization with IDS sensors in networks throughout the world. In addition, I have experience working with several regulatory controls and security standards (FISMA, NIST, GLBA etc). My experience as an ethical hacker and incident responder puts me in an excellent position to tackle this project.
Application security experience and accomplishments
I am a Senior Computer Security Engineer with Aspect Security where I perform security code reviews and application security testing against a variety of platforms. Prior to working with Aspect Security, I was heavily involved in the discovery and exploitation of application vulnerabilities during black box ethical hacking assessments for numerous clients.
Participation and leadership in open communities
I am a member of OWASP and attend Chicago OWASP chapter meetings. I also attend ChiSec, an informal meet-up of security professionals in the Chicago area. In addition, I interact with the community through my security blog. http://michaelcoates.wordpress.com.
Any other reasons why you and your project should be selected.
I created a similar framework while working within a Security Operation Center. I created attack scenarios, identified relevant IDS events, defined thresholds and appropriate response action for the Security analysts.
Requested Reviewer - Eric Sheridan, Application Security Consultant at Aspect Security, Inc.
Eric Sheridan is an Application Security Consultant at Aspect Security, a consulting services company specializing in application security. At Aspect Security, Eric specializes in execution of security verification assessments and the establishment of security activities throughout the development lifecycle. In addition, Eric is an instructor in Aspect’s portfolio of Application Security Courses. Eric is also an active participant in OWASP whose contributions include work with projects such as WebGoat, Stinger, CSRFGuard, CSRFTester, and the SASAP project from OWASP SPoC 2007. Eric was also a featured speaker at the 2007 OWASP/WASC San Jose conference.
Contact Information: eric dot sheridan 'at' owasp dot org
OWASP Interceptor Project - 2008 Update
by Justin Derry
http://www.owasp.org/index.php/Category:OWASP_Interceptor_Project
Executive Summary
The OWASP Interceptor project was originally written by myself and donated to the OWASP project. Since it has been online numerous people have downloaded the tools and used the code/toolkit. Currently the industry has very limited “XML” or SOAP client testing tools that are designed specifically to perform XML interception and manipulation. The Objective of the Interceptor project is to provide a strong tool for performing XML penetration tests against Web Service (or XML/SOAP) endpoints. The tool should not replace other proxy interception tools such as Charles, Web Scarab and so on, but be purely focused on handling and reading XML structures from clients.
The Interceptor tool includes a “swiss-army” knife of features that will help with decoding/hash generation and interpretation of XML code. The key objective is to make a tool that can assist with the collection, inspection and attack replay of XML requests against service endpoints. This year it’s time for an update. The tool doesn’t run on Vista and needs a number of back-end features addressed as well as some help files etc. (Help to get the tool out of BETA status).
Objectives this year
This year I see the following objectives in the application code base. • Get the Interface to run on all Window Platforms (.NET) Win2000, XP and Vista;
• Update the TCP handle libraries to be faster
• Update the XML Parser engine to support the latest structures
• Provide a “default” attack database of known XML attack methods (this is a big one)
• Write a number of help files on how to use the tool
• Update the toolkit BASE64 Decoder, XML Generators etc with further tools
• Write a better “reporting” engine to show the result of simulated attack responses
• Better HTTP support for Manipulation, Authentication and Header Injection etc
• Better support for interception and handling AJAX XML requests
These are the core features I would like to introduce, with also further to probably come as a part of the project.
Why should I be sponsored for the project?
The current development cycle stopped due to limited time and the need to purchase the IDE tools to develop the interface in .NET. As a Summer of Code 2008 sponsored project we can get the IDE interface tools to implement “Vista” features that will see the tool run on all .NET platforms (Win2000, XP and Vista). Recent changes in my job will allow me to spend more time on developing the toolkit.
Over a number of years I have been involved with OWASP, whilst most recently getting involved with running the OWASP Australia Security Conference for 2008, as well as the Brisbane Chapter. I am also working in the Asia Pacific RIM to further increase the awareness of OWASP and Application Security. My Conference duties for the year have finished up (till planning starts again in a couple of months) so my time can be invested in updating the toolkit.
I believe during the previous years, i have shown OWASP that i am willing and able to produce a quality outcome and i am prepared to put the effort into OWASP to acheive the goals set out for this project.
Some of the Sponsorship money for the project would go to purchasing a specific toolkit for the UI. (The UI is important simply because we want the application to be user friendly). Xceed Components provide a Smart UI as well as some of the decoding and compression features the tool needs. This would require us to approach them upfront for a “free” licence or use some of the Sponsorship money to buy the toolkit. But we can tackle that problem when we come to it.
SQL Injector Benchmarking Project (SQLiBENCH)
by Mesut Timur & Bedirhan Urgun
Prelude
There're a lot of and great open source tools (takeover/dumpers/hybrid) for taking advantage of an sql injection vulnerability both used by web application security specialists and attackers. Techniques used, databases supported, algorithms employed and abilities implemented by these "sql injectors" greatly varies. Standardization is one of the abstract goals of OWASP and we think it's important to standardize general vulnerability techniques exists in web applications and one of the biggest one is sql manipulation. In our effort, we aim to produce a standardization of techniques used in exploiting sql injection by automatic tools.
Proposal
The goal of the project is to create a detailed set of benchmarking criterias for automatic sql injection tools and applying these to a set of open source sql injectors, producing analysis/benchmarking reports. Additionaly, in a semi-academic manner, algorithms used by several sql injectors will be analyzed both implementation and complexity vise.
Deliverables And Project Schedule Milestones
Two set of documents will be produced. One of them will include the benchmarking criterias and the other will comprise of analysis of selected sql injectors against the benchmarking criterias. Moreover, an interactive visual data flow diagram, giving hints to testers about which tool should be used under which circumstances, will be implemented with web-based technologies such as jquery library.
April 03 Project Kickoff
April 03-30 Determination of the benchmarking criterias
May 01-15 Producing a test environment image with 5-6 rdbms (MSSQL Express, Oracle Express, DB2 Express, MySQL, PgSQL, etc.) and a vulnerable application (which will support different sql injection types, databases and include logging capabilities)
May 15-31 Selecting and installing automatic sql injectors onto the test system and starting to use them on vulnerable application
June 01-30 Analysing tools and applying benchmarking criterias, contacting the authors as we proceed
July 01-31 Producing reports for benchmarking criterias and tool analysis
About Us
We're part of OWASP-Turkey. Mesut Timur is a junior in the Computer Engineering Dept. of University of GYTE and Bedirhan Urgun is a web/application security specialist in TUBITAK-UEKAE.
OWASP-WeBekci Project
by Bunyamin Demir
http://www.owasp.org/index.php/Category:OWASP_WeBekci_Project
Executive Summary
Web application firewalls (WAF) are gaining importance among the information security technologies designed to protect web sites from attack. WAF solutions prevent attacks that network firewalls and intrusion detection systems can't and they require no modification of application source code. ModSecurity [10] is an open source web application firewall that runs as an Apache module. It is an embeddable web application firewall and it provides protection from a range of attacks against web applications. It is an open source project available to everyone; it however does not come with an admin panel.
I decided to provide this essential tool with a control panel which I believe will ease and thus encourage its usage.
ModSecurity allows for HTTP traffic monitoring and real-time analysis with no changes to existing infrastructure. My main goal is to analyze attacks and generate rules to change the configuration of the ModSecurity accordingly.
ModSecurity has a feature called “flexible rule engine” as its heart of Attack Prevention capability . It uses ModSecurity’s “Rule Language,” (a programming language designed to work with HTTP transaction data). It is easy to use and flexible; yet the system administrators need to learn its own rules to create what is called “Certified ModSecurity Rules” to be implemented. My control panel will automate the major code-generation in Rule Language.
Objectives and Deliverables
- Configuration : Most of the configuration parameters will be managed through the web interface
- Rule Generator : Basic rules will be generated using the web interface
- Core Rule Integration: Core rules will be added to the database for use
- Logging and Reporting: Apache error log and modsec_audit log will be parsed and presented to the user thru the web interface
- DB Support : MySQL
Why I should be sponsored for the project Being a SpoC2007 project, it couldn't be implemented mainly due to a job change and therefore lack of time. With the help of Bedirhan Urgun we'll be able to produce a quality web admin panel GUI for a same host modsec installation infrastructure. We are both part of OWASP Turkey [11] and tried to produce a great deal of awareness both about web security and OWASP with both documents/chapter meetings/email list and mini-conferences.
Teachable Static Analysis Workbench
By Dmitry Kozlov, Igor Konnov
Introduction:
This application covers two OWASP Project proposals: P002 Teachable Static Analysis Workbench and P023 Code Review Tree. These project proposals look complementary and the key idea was to create ONE tool for code review instead of number non-integrated tools. Note: this project is very close to P024 Attack Surface Metric too – based on web application entry points and used backends it is easy to compute such a metric.
Project objectives and deliverables:
Project is intended two deliverables: research technical report (publication ready article) and a workbench prototype.
The research will be intended to answer the following questions:
- Can we integrate existing open source static analysis tools (OWASP and third-party) to work altogether? We plan analysis to cover the following tools: LAPSE, Orizon, ESAPI, FindBugs.
- How static analysis workbench can be taught by security analyst?
- How static analysis workbench can support web-applications built using MVC frameworks?
Workbench prototype will be Java-based Eclipse plug-in which aim is to help security analyst/code reviewer validation of web application. At prototype step we suggest to analyze J2EE Web tier applications build on Java Servlets, JSP (without business logic in it) and one MVC framework (Apache Struts). We plan workbench prototype to have the following functionality:
- Input validation vulnerabilities analysis: identification of web application entry points (aka attack surface in P024), call graph for each entry point (see “Packages -> Classes -> Methods -> callsites” in P023), identification of data validation routines, teachable taint analysis.
- Authentification and access control analysis: identification of code related to access control and it’s analysis.
- Pattern-based code analysis.
- Teachability: analyst indicates security-related code (sources of tainted data, sensitive sinks, input validation and sanitizing functions, access control code, etc.) and workbench automatically recomputes possible vulnerabilities list. The second idea is to spread knowledge gathered from analyst to other web applications.
Project budget: $10K (note: this project combines two OWAPS Project Proposals)
Future development:
Further, workbench can be extended to support various Java web application frameworks and to support Python web applications (it seems to us that teachable tool is much more valuable for Python and other languages where the notion of web application is not so formal as in J2EE).
Background:
Dmitry Kozlov is a postdoc researcher at Moscow State University. Since 2003 he leads a group performing research in the area of web application security. In 2007 this group took part in OWASP Spring of Code on project "Python Dynamic Analysis". This project was implemented mostly by Dmitry’s PhD student Andrew Petukhov. Also in 2007 this group created static analysis tool for Python language, based on Pixy PHP analyser (publication is upcoming).
Igor Konnov is PhD student at Moscow State University he has strong background in program analysis and verification.
OpenPGP Extensions for HTTP - Enigform and mod_openpgp
By Arturo 'Buanzo' Busleiman
Introduction to the project
My name is Arturo Busleiman, a.k.a Buanzo. Last year I worked with OWASP to take Enigform (The OpenPGP Firefox Extension) and mod_openpgp (The Apache counterpart) to an usable level. This year, I want to focus on mod_openpgp and Secure Session Management, presenting a working web-site using this new authentication methodology in such a way that it will attract security professionals and web-developers to this new mix of two good'ol protocols: HTTP and OpenPGP.
For that to happen, OWASP support is essential. I'm very happy to submit my application for Summer of Code 2008.
About Buanzo
I am a 26 year old Independent security consultant from Buenos Aires, Argentina, that has contributed to the world of information systems security since 1994. Linux and Security are my life.
A quick search for buanzo on google [12] will provide all necessary details about my professional and community background. For comprobable experience, you could also check my Rent a Coder profile.[13] or my "Customer Comments" page at [14].
I've contributed scripts, fixes and translations to the Nmap project. I've also acted as Expert Contributor for SANS TOP-20 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007. I've developed tools and written documentation that can be found in Freshmeat, mozdev.org and addons.mozilla.org. Also I've written the Unix chapter of the OISSG's Information Systems Security Assessment Framework, v1.0 [15].
In my free time, I "run" the 2600 Argentina meetings, write articles, give talks and play the guitar.
I'm an active member of the FLOSS community since 1996, having written articles in magazines http://www.net-security.org/dl/articles/Detecting_and_Understanding_rootkits.txt, made TV, radio and newspaper appearances [16] and led different security research groups of Spain, Mexico and Argentina. Currently I contribute time thorugh my sites, forums and blogs, answering questions in mailing lists and helping coordinate some local LUGs. I do also manager the Linux Counter for Argentina [17].
About Enigform
The project has draw attention from the IETF OpenPGP Working Group, and even Vinton Cerf (The Father of the Internet) said that Enigform and mod_openpgp "[this] strikes me as a really interesting idea and I hope you (Buanzo) will pursue it with the W3C." (February 18, 2008). [18]
OWASP AntiSamy .NET
- Arshan Dabirsiaghi
Executive Summary
The OWASP AntiSamy Project was well received at the OWASP/WASC San Jose 2007 conference, and the momentum carried forward as the project was noted in several popular blogs and had its various distributions downloaded in aggregate thousands of times.
All the platforms, not just Java, need this functionality. The Zend group is currently working on getting a PHP version started, so naturally the only platform remaining for major sites is .NET. Therefore, I propose that OWASP sponsor me in creating a .NET version of the OWASP AntiSamy Project. It should also be noted that the OWASP ESAPI .NET project requires this API to be created.
Background
I'm currently a Senior Application Security Engineer at Aspect Security, an industry leading application security company. I've delivered tutorials all over the country at various commercial organizations and conferences like OWASP and Blackhat.
Proposed Project Reviewer: Jeff Williams/Dinis Cruz
Jeff Williams will be the easiest reviewer due to proximity, but Dinis Cruz's or another OWASP .NET project member's knowledge of .NET may prove useful to the project.
Objectives and Deliverables
The aim of the project would be to deliver a functionally identical version of the AntiSamy project in .NET. Secondarily, we would hope to deliver a Release quality product by the end of the Summer of Code timeframe in line with the Java version.
Online code signing and integrity verification service for open source community (OpenSign Server)
by Phil Potisk and Richard Conway
It is the opinion of this pair that there is a decided lack of code signing and integrity checking support for the open source community. The purpose of this project would be to build and host a feature-rich server and suite of client utilities with adequate secure hardware to ensure the integrity of code modules.
Summary
The service will allow all .NET and Java code modules to be uploaded to the service to be signed by a community code signing key. Each community (such as OWASP) will have a key and corresponding Software Publishing Certificate (SPC) which can optionally be embedded in the code module itself. Generally, however, the service is intended for developers and the wider community of concerned users that want to ensure that their downloaded portable executable is exactly what it purports to be. The root key will be stored in an HSM and will sign an SPC from a locally generated key-pair of which the public key will be sent to the service. Key pair generation can be made and submitted using standard .NET delay signing and jar signing tools distributed with the SDKs, however, the project remit will ensure that a client-side graphical tool for each environment is available to generate the keys pairs needed to sign code with and allow submission to the code signing service for signing and generation of SPC by the server's proprietary CA. Anonymity will not be allowed so the project will include a database of users which will be the basis of directory for SPCs.
There will be a web and web services interface using an online login and WS-Security respectively which will allow the code to be uploaded on demand and signed by a code signing key with the option to embed the certificate or not.
Problem domain
- Current download of portable executables inherently insecure with only a CRC/MD5 check
- No open source standard for code signing and delivery of portable executables between developers to test for tamper evidence
- No managed service for code signing outside of verisign or other paid for X509 signing service
- Process currently very mechanical with use of command line tools or PKCS#10 software requests which should be abstracted from developer
Ideal Solution
- Ensure third party verification of code modules through a dedicated PKI backbone
- Educate the OWASP and wider open source community in the use of code signing
- Replace standard CRC/MD5 hash usage with some more secure that can be repudiated if challenged
- Use an internet infrastructure to allow the dissemination of certificates (potentially multipurpose in later versions)
- Ensure accountability through actions logging and authentication
- Standardise a set of open source client tools for the creation of keys and manipulation of certificates
Graphical Interfaces
- Client tool to generate RSA key pair and request signing certificate by return via a secure connection, secure connection will authenticate user after a dedicated registration process and also use mutual authentication SSL to avoid man-in-the-middle - returning certificate to user in real time. Registered developer can then submit their SPC online to verify the SPC.
- Client tool to download software that will do a proper verification on the software against the code signing service
- Website interface for the code signing service
- Set of Admin tools to manage the code signing service, user and certificate repository
Added advantage
Environment can be secured and tested regularly by members of Owasp to ensure the security of the server and infrastructure haven't been hijacked! The project will only be as secure the server environment!
Breakdown of tasks
- Server setup and installation of OpenLDAP
- Installation of Mock HSM (eAladdin token)
- Creation of PKCS#11 for key management and key creation activities
- Installation of Java/.NET SDKs
- Development of codebase for signing using SDK tools (later versions will reverse engineer this into jar/assemblies directly)
- Library for creating SPC (CA)
- User registration, authentication, activity logging, database support
- OpenLDAP user/certificate repository, access using mutual-authentication SSL
- Development of client tool suite
- Development of administrator tools
- Procurement of FIPs compliant HSM and installation
- Administrator/user manuals
- Pen testing of solution by OWASP members
- Go live!
Post July completion tasks
- Support for Microsoft office documents with macros and others
- Full support for community management (i.e. OWASP differentiated from other developer communities)
Background and Experience of project team
Richard Conway has 13 years commercial development experience in messaging and financial/investment banking systems having managed teams to deliver complex Agile solutions. He has degrees and PGDip in computer science and another in physics (finishing 2009) and has taught at Westminster university and written 7 books 3 of which are on security related topics (and numerous articles).
Phil Potisk has an academic background from Graz university, degree and masters and is currently looking at doing a pHD in the UK all on computer science/information security. He has several years commercial experience all in the security space for major companies in Austria and the UK.
Both Richard and Phil have worked together for 4 years in the space of ePassports/smart cards where they have an impact on ICAO standards and have fulfilled consultancy and product development in the area of passport inspection, cryptography, ePassport/smart card protocols testing and more. They have a wealth of knowledge and experience in PKI and development of applications using secure hardware and cryptography.
Lockpick
- Mark Roxberry
Summary
Lockpick is an open source penetration testing project management tool. There are plenty of tools that do specific functions, or a range of technical functions (NMAP, Nessus). However, there are not many open source tools to help manage the scope of the testing a system. Lockpick will fill that role. When I start a penetration test, Lockpick will provide my checklists and script resources and update my tools. For intelligence gathering, Lockpick will let me create profiles for target companies and persons. I can shell out to my normal tool suite and organize my log files and other output with the tool. Eventually, I can use Lockpick to pull all of the testing data together and generate an executive summary and detail report with the logs and profiles for addenda.
Project Roadmap
April 2, 2008 - April 30, 2008 (Sprint 1)
- Architecture, technical design (use cases, db design) and UI design
May 1, 2008 - May 31, 2008 (Sprint 2)
- Project framework (modular design - use an dependency injection (IoC) architecture, so we can rip and replace components)
- GUI framework
- GUI for pen-test overview (use NIST or OSSTMM for process milestones)
June 1, 2008 - June 30, 2008 (Sprint 3)
- Competitive intelligence feature (Company and individual profile builder)
July 1, 2008 - July 31, 2008 (Sprint 4)
- Checklist and scripting repository feature (with rss synchronization feed)
(Unit Tests, Code, and QA)
July 15, 2008 Project Status Report
August 1, 2008 - August 31, 2008 (Sprint 5)
- 3rd Party tool integration (shell out and log management)
Project Wishlist
- Report generator (integrated with open office, google docs)
- OVAL (Open Vulnerability and Assessment Language) database reader
- Testing log GUI
Project Team
Mark Roxberry, CISSP, CEH, MCP - independent software vendor. I've been writing code since infancy. It would be great to have OWASP sponsor the project and give me the opportunity to create something that other testers can use.
OWASP Live CD 2008 Project
- Matt Tesauro
Introduction
The previous OWASP Live CD project distributions have laid a good foundation for the 2008 Project. I'd like to take the existing Live CD and further enhance it. I see the 2008 Live CD as filling the Web App Sec niche not the more general Pen Tester niche. I'd concede general Pen Testing to Backtrack [19]. However, Backtrack has a different audience and is not specifically tailored for web application security professionals. This is the role I think this Live CD could fulfill with great success. I'd like to take the OWASP Live CD 2008 Project in that direction and see the OWASP Live CD become to Web App Sec what Backtrack is to Pen Testing.
Proposal
I'd like to take the existing applications and documentation in the current Live CD and add significantly more tools and documentation specifically focused on Web application security. I think OWASP's Phoenix/Tools page [20] would be a good starting point for potential tools. I'd also like to use WASC [21] and ISECOM/OSSTMM [22] as sources for material.
The project would first enumerate a list of tools to include on the CD where licensing, supported OS and space will determine what is included on the Live CD. After determining a reasonable list of tools, the next phase would be to create modules for the tools and merge these modules with the Live CD. Then documentation and tutorials would be added (also as space allows) followed by any remaining OWASP branding. Additional polishing could include pre-installation (license permitting) of the VMware tools.
Deliverables
April 2 to May 15, 2008
- Enumerated tools and reference material for installation verifying that the software license allows permits distribution.
May 16 to July 4, 2008
- Create modules for each tool and begin to merge the modules with the base distribution.
- Begin testing of the Live CD.
July 5 to August 31, 2008
- Complete the merging of modules and install any remaining documentation.
- Further testing of the Live CD particularly installation of new/updated modules.
Challenges / Outstanding Issues
While the current Live CD is base on Morphix – a Knoppix derivative created to allow easy creation of custom Live CDs, I'm not sure it it provides the flexibility needed to keep the CD tools updated. While I'm fine with keeping the Live CD on Morphix, I also see value in switching to another distribution: SLAX. Here's the brief pros and cons of each as I see them.
Pros of Mophix:
- no change to current LiveCD - principally just updates to existing and augment.
- Modular Live CD
- Based on Knoppix which is the granddaddy of live CDs (tons of documentation)
Cons of Morphix:
- While modular, uses a modular structure which isn't compatible with other well established live CDs - particularly Backtrack
- Modules are not as granular as SLAX (lower ease of updating)
Pros of SLAX:
- Modular Live CD (more modular then Morphix though I'm more familiar with SLAX then Morphix from using/modifying Backtrack)
- Same modular format as Backtrack and other SLAX variants. This allows module sharing between OWASP and other live CDs
- As tools are updated, only the module for that tools would need to be updated - not the entire live CD.
Con of SLAX:
- Would have to re-do the work done for the current Live CD
As said above, I'm not sold on either distro but I do think going forward, the more granular modules of SLAX will allow for easier updates of the included tools and documentation. Backtrack is a good example of this. I think the migration would represent a short term loss for a long term gain.
A bit about me
I've been using Linux since somewhere around 1996 when I got my first “Mega Distro pack” which included 6+ distro CDs, a bumper sticker and a t-shirt for $29.95. I think it was in the RedHat 5.2 time frame. I've had Linux as my primary OS since 2000 and have used many, many different distros. Also, I am a RHCE (#803005588313799) as well as Linux+ certified so I believe I'm qualified the Linux aspects of the project.
I got started with creating static HTML pages in 1999 and my first job out of college was a Web application developer for an international telecom company in 2000. Later, I took a developer job at Texas A&M University and also taught Web application development courses at the undergraduate and graduate level. Next, I spent some time as a Pen Tester where I discovered WHAX, Auditor and Backtrack live CDs and realized how useful they can be. Currently, I work on Web Application Security for an agency with ~75 internally developed web apps and 500,000+ users. I'm involved in application development from preliminary design reviews to pre-production security testing. I also have a CISSP (Cert # 67636) and CEH (Certified Ethical Hacker) security certifications. I've been enjoying OWASP since I first discovered Web Goat (then at version 3.7) and thought it was high time I gave something back to OWASP.
OWASP Education Project
- Martin Knobloch
OWASP Education Project / OWASP Boot Camp
The project will continuously deliver education material about OWASP tooling and documentation. This aims to create an easy entrance towards understanding application security and usage of the OWASP tooling. By creating education documentation papers, screen scrape video courses and setting up an OWASP Boot camp, a controlled education process of a standardized quality can be created continuously. With the setup of a OWASP Boot camp, the OWASP word can be spread in a controlled manner and deliver high quality training., both inside and outside of the OWASP community. The OWASP Education Project will setup and standardize OWASP trainings manuals and materials to ensure a certain level of quality of the trainings. Trainings about the OWASP tooling and projects will have to be reviewed by the Projects.
Complexity - What is the project Complexity and Size?
Deliverables to focus on are, in first place, to set up an OWASP Boot camp. For this the project will create a training and video (screen scrape) training material about Application Security basics, using the OWASP WebGoat and OWASP WebScarab tooling on the OWASP Top Ten vulnerabilities. Next, creating training material on the main OWASP Project's as the OWASP Guide and OWASP Testing Guide.
Member Value - How big is the potential added value to OWASP Members?
The OWASP Education project ensures a common shared set of knowledge about application security in general and the OWASP tooling in detail. The OWASP Boot camp helps new OWASP members to get on track fast and on a guaranteed quality level.
Brand Value - How big is the potential added value to the OWASP Brand?
The OWASP Education projects Boot camp deliverable can help to spread the OWASP word beyond the OWASP community. Holding OWASP Boot camps can generate additional venue. The OWASP Education project will extend the knowledge about the OWASP tooling and the usage of those. In the current discussion of the OWASP certification, the OWASP Education project can support and certify training. The OWASP certification can be supported by special OWASP Certification Boot camps.
On the Candidate:
Past Work - Value of past contributions to OWASP Projects; previously, as OWASP On The Move project lead, I was involved in setting up the OWASP On The Move rules. I am involved in the Dutch local chapter inside the chapter board, focusing on the content, speakers and feedback of the local chapter meeting. On the AppSec Australia conference I was speaker on the subject on what to consider when implementing a Secure Development Process. On my daily job, being Software Architect at Sogeti Nederland B.V., I have set up a Secure Development Taskforce. I have succeeded to make Sogeti Nederland B.V. and member of the OWASP community. Sogeti sponsored previous local Dutch chapter meetings and my trip to Australia. The deliverables of the Sogeti Secure Development Taskforce (PaSS, Proactive Security Strategy) are given to the OWASP community, as we will continue to do in the future.
Fortify Code Review Project
- David Rook
Your educational and professional background:
I have worked in IT for over 8 years now with 5 years Information Security experience. I have obtained and taught many IT certifications in my career so far.
Application security experience and accomplishments:
Work experience as an Information Security Analyst implementing application security in a highly sensitive environment. I'm currently contributing to an OWASP project (Code Review guide) and spoken on the subject of Application Security at a developers conference.
Participation and leadership in open communities:
As mentioned above I'm currently contributing to one other OWASP project.
The opportunity, challenges, issues or need your proposal addresses:
My proposal is to help Fortify and OWASP achieve the goals set out in the objectives for this project. The project has the ability to deliver a clear guide on static analysis and subsequently how to add this into the SDLC. The auditing of open source software can help to enhance the security of this software and possibly improve its ability to increase its user base.
Milestones and objectives:
Process all OWASP Java developments through the Fortify scanner Review the output of the Fortify scans on the OWASP projects that have been submitted Produce the first draft of the three documents that need to be delivered Liaise with OWASP/major Java Open Source project contacts to involve them in reviewing the output of Fortify scans of their developments Provide final documentation
Specific activities and who will carry out these activities:
I will carry out all the activities for this project myself.
Research current methods of static analysis in the application security arena and combine this with my own knowledge. This research will allow me to define a workflow which illustrates how static analysis will be integrated into the SDLC.
Identify which OWASP applications have been submitted for analysis and identify which other projects can be scanned. I will contact the relevant project leads to get them to submit the projects for review.
Review the results of the scans and analyse any issues found. I will provide feedback on any issues found to the relevant project lead.
Identify major Open Source Java projects and liaise with these projects to involve them in scans of their code. We will provide feedback on the results and ensure that future code revisions are also scanned by the Fortify system.
Provide revised guides based on feedback from the draft documents and the use of the Fortify system.
Specific deliverables and a rough project schedule so we can track progress:
The deliverables for this project would see me firstly provide draft guides once I have used the Fortify system to review any recently scanned OWASP projects.
I would also seek to involve major java Open Source projects in the Fortify project which will help the Fortify Scanner become part of many Open Source developments.
Providing report documents to the relevant OWASP project leads which would explain any issues found in the Fortify scan of their code
Deliver the final guides for review
Long-term vision for the project:
I would see this project firstly serving as a focal point for anyone wishing to implement Static Analysis into their own SDLC. Secondly I see this project as a launching pad for the Fortify scanner to increase its use by Open Source projects.
Any other reasons why you and your project should be selected:
I'm very passionate about Application Security and I want to use this passion to help the Application Security community. I think the project should be selected so that the objectives of both the OWASP and Fortify can be achieved.
Project Plan:
My project plan can be found here: http://docs.google.com/Present?docid=dcd4c73_0ghsncvcf&skipauth=true
Source Code Review OWASP Projects
- James Walden
Educational and professional background:
I am an assistant professor of computer science at Northern Kentucky University, and I previously worked as a visiting assistant professor at the University of Toledo. Before entering academia, I worked for Intel as a software engineer for five years. I hold a Ph.D. in theoretical physics from Carnegie Mellon University.
Application Security experience:
My primary area of interest in research and teaching is application security. I have worked with application security issues since 1993 when I was developing secure CGI scripts in perl at CMU, and much of my work at Intel involved application security. I have used Fortify's Source Code Analysis tool in my teaching and research since 2005, and I served as a technical reviewer for the book Secure Programming with Static Analysis by Brian Chess and Jakob West.
I have developed workshops on secure programming, software security, and web application security, including both slides and demonstration web applications, which I have taught to computer science faculty at conferences since 2005 and to software developers through my university since 2006. I have given many talks on application security during the last three years to local professional groups like IEEE, ISACA, and ISSA and at conferences such as the Ohio Information Security Conference and Recent Advances in Information Assurance, Network and Software Security 2007.
Open Communities:
I have contributed to the OWASP Guide and OWASP Code Review Guide, and I participate in the OWASP Cincinnati chapter. I have also submitted a number of small patches to fix bugs in open source projects over the years.
Opportunity and Challenges
There will be other contributors to this project, including one professor and several students. Dr. Maureen Doyle will work with one student to develop and document the workflow to incorporate Fortify Java Open Source static analysis into the SDLC. Anticipated issues include detecting false positives that result from the analysis and reporting the security errors to the appropriate developers for future correction (e.g., through Bugzilla or similar system). It is uncertain how much of the workflow can be automated. The workflow documentation will require that static analysis be a part of the SDLC.
Dr. Doyle has twenty years of industry experience working with various development lifecycles and has implemented software processes at General Electric and Alphatech, Inc. Dr. Doyle keeps current on software development paradigms as part of her course preparation for graduate and undergraduate software engineering courses. Dr. James Walden, whose background is described above, will lead the auditing task and collaborate on the workflow development.
Milestones and Objectives
The objectives of this project are:
- Develop and document a workflow for open source projects to incorporate static analysis into the Software Development Life Cycle (SDLC).
- Apply the above workflow as a required step for OWASP projects.
- Aid in auditing select open source projects to create a baseline for comparing security amongst open source projects.
The milestones for this project are:
- Three projects selected for initial analysis by May 1.
- Project 1 submitted to Fortify Java Open Review Project by June 1
- Workflow sent out for review by June 1
- Projects 2 and 3 submitted to Fortify Java Open Review Project by July 1
- Additional projects identified for analysis with the revised workflow by July 1.
- Workflow available at OWASP by August 15
- Additional projects submitted to Fortify Java Open Review by August 15
Project Schedule
- May 1, 2008: Team finalized, three projects selected for initial analysis.
- June 1, 2008: Team of workflow reviewers finalized, preliminary workflow sent out for review, project 1 analysis complete using initial workflow.
- July 1, 2008: Project 2 and 3 analysis completed, workflow finalized, additional projects selected for creating baseline.
- August 15, 2008: Analysis of projects for baseline security measures complete, workflow documented on OWASP web site.
Long Term Vision
We would like to analyze the classes of security bugs found through static analysis to determine if patterns exist, so that we could develop measures to prevent the introduction of such bugs into projects. We would also like to implement a security metrics collection process for projects, recording data on static analysis usage, number of security bugs, lifetime of security bugs, and so forth.
Supporting Information
Dr. Walden and Dr. Doyle bring a combination of industrial and academic experience to this task. They both regularly mentor undergraduate students working on research projects, and they have already recruited students to work on a project using static analysis tools. The funds offered by OWASP will be used solely to fund our undergraduate students.
P022 - OWASP Access Control Rules Tester
By Andrew Petukhov
Introduction:
I believe that web application business logic vulnerabilities will be under increasing attention in near future. Although input validation vulnerabilities (XSS, SQLI) are in overwhelming majority nowadays, many automated approaches have emerged that deal with them. On the contrary, there are no known approaches (and methodologies for security experts) to classify or even detect business logic vulnerabilities. Besides, business logic flaws usually expose web application to great risks (according to OWASP Testing Guide). My proposal is to create a systematic approach that addresses business logic vulnerabilities.
Project objectives and deliverables:
Project is intended two deliverables: research technical report (publication ready article) and an Access Control Rules Tester tool.
The research will be intended to answer the following questions:
- Is there a reasonable classification of business logic vulnerabilities?
- Is it possible to generalize some cases into methodology or even an algorithm for an automated tool?
- Is it possible to build precise access control matrix for a web application and how?
Access Control Rules Tester (AcCoRuTe) tool will be Java-based application. As proposed inP022, AcCoRuTe will have the following functionality:
- Site spider. Basic features: Javascript (and AJAX) is interpreted by Rhino in order to get more site links; forms are filled in by operator.
- Sitemap generator. Sitemap is presented to operator; he can make it more precise/complete.
- Sitemaps analyzer. This component intersects different sitemaps in order to determine possible flaws. The result is test case, which verifies, whether vulnerability really exists or not.
I am PhD student at Moscow State University. In 2007 I took part in OWASP Spring of Code on project "Python Dynamic Analysis". I have strong background in programming and I beleive that I also have creative approach to existing scientific problems.
Python Static Analysis
By Georgy Klimov
Introduction:
During 2007 Dmitry Kozlov, Igor Konnov and Georgy Klimov prototyped taint-style static analysis for Python web applications. This tool is based on Pixy project. It is able to find input validation security vulnerabilities in Python-based web applications. This tool is currently in alfa release. It supports limited subset of Python: functions, modules, classes and data structures, but not generators, comprehensions, lambda-functions etc. And it has support only mod_python web applications.
Project objectives:
The aim of this project is to bring this project to at least beta quality to become OWASP open source project:
- full language support,
- other Python frameworks support,
- analysis improvement,
- reporting capability,
- documentation,
- promotion materials: publication-ready article and presentation.
Future directions of development:
Integration of this tool into teachable static analysis workbench applied to SoC 2008 by Dmitry Kozlov and Igor Konnov. Additional languages support.
Why should I be sponsored for this project:
I’m 5-th year graduate student at Moscow State University and my scientific work concern with static program analysis. I’m very good in programming Java and Python (this tool is written mostly in Java). This tool was written by me and my scientific advisors: Dmitry Kozlov and Igor Konnov.
P003/P013 - OWASP Application Security Tool Benchmarking Environment and Site Generator refresh.=
submitted by Dmitry Kozlov (see below about project team)
Introduction In my opinion it is not good idea to start two new different projects concerning to Benchmarking Environment. OWASP already has "Insecure Web App Project", Foundstone created couple of similar applications, our group created similiar application in Python (by the way: Does OWASP need it to be published?). OWASP SiteGenerator is another different tool but very platform-bound. Moreover NIST is also working in this direction.
Project description My idea is to split destination web application technology from the three reusable libraries: library of navigational elements, library of vulnerabilities and library of language constructs. Library of navigational elements is required to assess spidering features and library of language constructs is required to assess source code scanners this constructs can be in programming language or preferable in language-independent form of Abstract Syntax Tree. Navigation and vulnerability libraries are independent from technology web application built in. This make is possible to create web applications with similar vulnerabilities in different technologies.
User can create target XML application configuration similar to SiteGenerator's in terms of site structure, navigational elements and vulnerabilities. After that web application can be generated using technology specific generator. Generators can create source code or binary application but not a stub like SiteGenerator. This allows static and dynamic code analysis to be performed on web application and penetration testing too.
I think this tool and components library should be platform-independent unlike SiteGenerator. And only technology-specific generators may be platform-dependent. Such technology-specific generators can be source code generators or can be binary application template.
If you are interested in we can perform such project by our students under scientific advisory by Dmitry Kozlov and Andrew Petukhov, but it seems to me this tool will be delivered in about 6-7 month. During SoC2007 it was about 7 month between start and finish of projects.
Securing WebGoat using ModSecurity
Submitted by Stephen Evans
Background: ModSecurity is an open source web application firewall that can work either embedded in an Apache web server or as a reverse proxy. The new features in version 2.0 and version 2.5 (released in February 2008) allow for a highly configurable capability that can address vulnerabilities (e.g. discovered during black-box penetration testing) on a per-application basis. ModSecurity provides for free a broad set of generic Core Rulesets (http://www.modsecurity.org/projects/rules/) that cover areas such as protocol compliance, malicious client software detection, XML protection, error detection, and generic attack detection ("Detect application level attacks such as described in the OWASP top 10"). However, the Core Set rule documentation (see README in modsecurity-core-rules_2.5-1.6.0.tar.gz) cautions that since attackers may examine the freely-available core rules to get around them, some core rules should be viewed more as a "nuisance reduction" mechanism instead of a security mechanism.
The lessons in WebGoat 5.1 detail over 30 different types of attacks on the WebGoat application (see the WebGoat v5 User & Install Guide).
Purpose: The purpose of my project is to create custom Modsecurity rulesets that, in addition to the Core Set, will protect WebGoat 5.1 from as many of its vulnerabilities as possible (the goal is 90%) without changing one line of source code. To ensure that it will be a complete 'no touch' on WebGoat and its environment, ModSecurity will be configured on Apache server as a remote proxy server.
For those vulnerabilities that cannot be prevented (partially or not at all), I will document my efforts in attempting to protect them. Business logic vulnerabilities will be particularly challenging to solve.
The opportunity, challenges, issues or need your proposal addresses:
- Provides application-level protection for those web applications that cannot be touched
- New custom rulesets can be added as new attack types are discovered
- This solution is programming language and platform agnostic
- With outside help from consultants, this solution can be used by companies that have zero knowledge of software security
- A possible unintended side-effect: introduce software security awareness into an organization, which may lead to software security development lifecycle practices for future projects
- An attempt will be made to address business logic vulnerabilities which will be a challenge
Schedule, tasks and deliverables:
April 01 to April 06: Set up and test the development environment. The initial Reverse Proxy server OS will be Kubuntu 7.10.
April 07 to May 04: Identify WebGoat vulnerabilities and exploitation methods. Publish to WIKI for review, feedback, and modification.
May 5 to May 25: Develop rulesets for 50% of the vulnerabilities, starting with the low-hanging fruit. Deliver user documentation. Publish progress to WIKI as each vulnerability is addressed. [Milestone 1]
May 26 to June 15: Develop rulesets for the 2nd 50% of the vulnerabilities. Publish progress to WIKI as each vulnerability is addressed.
June 16 to June 22: Test final rulesets and Modsecurity Reverse Proxy on 2 other Linux distros (Fedora Core and ???).
June 23 to June 29: Produce final rulesets and documentation.
June 30 to July 13: Peer review, feedback, modification, deliver final product [Project completion]
Future development:
- Demonstrate the same capability for a vulnerable, well-known ASP.NET application such as Hacme Bank
- Add custom rulesets that address attack types not represented in WebGoat but identified in the OWASP 2007 Top 10 (e.g. CSRF) or any newly-discovered attack types
Long term vision:
- Instead of only protection mechanisms, add alerting and forensic capabilities (this functionality is presently available in ModSecurity) which would move closer to the goal of an application being self-defending
Proposed project reviewer: Dinis Cruz
Dinis seems to have a special passion for Web Application Firewalls.
Stephen’s background and experience:
- BSc in Computer Science and Mathematics, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec
- 20+ years software developer
- 4 years “officially” intensive information security professional since getting CISSP and joining a Big Security Vendor
- Well-rounded infosec experience in areas such as CERT, security product deployment and training, vulnerability threat management, incident handling/response, antivirus scan engine customization.
- Started up Big Security Vendor’s Secure Application Services (as sole consultant) for APAC region
- Technical lead for a large APAC government project, building a software package assessment framework and workflow application based on an excellent, mature proprietary pentesting methodology
- Numerous pentests/security assessments/risk assessments, mostly in the government space
- Several SDLC projects, including a current one with an APAC government agency as the software security consultant throughout the entire SDLC for a field service type of mobile application using WinCE 5 & C#
Participation and leadership in open communities:
A founding member of Singapore chapter of IASA (International Association of Architects); gave “Security throughout the SDLC” presentation at IASA regional conference in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, in 2006.
Any other reasons why you and your project should be selected:
- This project is a huge “big-bang-for-the-buck” contribution from OWASP to the software development community
- The results of this project, along with ModSecurity, can be a big aid to organizations that need a (free) Web Application Firewall to meet PCI-DSS requirements
- I am very passionate about:
- Making about 75% of the “security researchers” look for a new line of work
- Altering the focus of software security from “audit mode” towards software security during the SDLC
- Software security
P006 - OWASP Corporate Application Security Rating Guide
*Project Application submitted by: Parvathy Iyer
Educational and professional background: CIA, CISA with over seven years experience in information technology and application security audits.
Application security experience and accomplishments : I have experience in ensuring that equity application solution conforms to security compliance requirements of the stock exchanges and the Security Exchange Board of India.
Participation and leadership in open communities : Member of ISACA and IIA, NJ Chapters.
The opportunity, challenges, issues or need your proposal addresses : The project will be the first of its kind that I have ever attempted and in that sense its my first challenge. The project will help me organize and structure publicly available data that large companies will share of the lessons learned about how to organize an application security initiative, best practices for training and testing, and more.
Objectives or ways in which you will meet the goal(s) : Analysis of publicly available data such as interviews, presentations, briefings for details. The project will link to all source material used in creating the rating. The rating will involve application security and awareness training; defining security requirements and verification for each application; establishing a dedicated application team and process for responding to security issues and allocating points to each issues.
Specific activities and who will carry out these activities : Parvathy.N.Iyer will carry out the entire analysis and rating. Neal Kirschner, Director of IT services at Eisner LLP with over 20 years work experience will be the reviewer on the project.
Specific deliverables and a rough project schedule so we can track progress : A project update will be provided on May 31, 2008 and the project shall be completed by August 31, 2008.
Long-term vision for the project: The project will be used as a guide for rating applications.
Any other reasons why you and your project should be selected: I feel that I should be selected for the project is because this would be a fun challenge for me and also because I am competent and committed to doing this project.
Project Application submitted by: Parvathy Iyer
Current occupation: IT Audit- Senior, Eisner LLP
P028 - OWASP UI Component Verification Project (a.k.a. OWASP JSP Testing Tool)
Submitted by Jason Li
Personal Background
Jason is an Application Security Engineer at Aspect Security during which time he has performed code reviews, penetration testing and training at a variety of financial, commercial, and government institutions. He is a certified GIAC Secure Software Programmer in Java and before joining Aspect, he was a Java Software Developer and a Java course instructor for Johns Hopkins University. He also assisted Arshan Dabirsiaghi with the coding of OWASP AntiSamy. Jason received his Master's and B.S from Cornell University (both in Computer Science). He has recently completed the degree requirements for his Post-Master's in Computer Science with a concentration in Information Security, which will be conferred in May 2008 by Johns Hopkins University.
Project Motivation
Cross-site scripting is one of the most pervasive web application security vulnerabilities present in today's applications, ranking at the top of the most recent OWASP Top Ten (2007). Recently, UI frameworks have emerged that allow application developers to create web components quickly and effortlessly. Java EE facilitates this ability by providing JSP tags that can be conglomerated as a tag library, such as was done with Java Server Faces (JSF). These tags allow developers to create rich user interfaces by parameterizing attributes of the web component. With the advent of this design, a unique opportunity arises to prevent cross-site scripting. If tag libraries offered built-in protection from cross-site scripting, then using parameterized web components to prevent cross-site scripting could become analogous to using parameterized queries to prevent SQL injection. However, security is not always in mind when such tag libraries are developed and thus it is not clear which libraries, if any, offer such built-in protection. This project would allow developers to quickly determine the protection mechanisms provided by any tag libraries they develop or of any third-party tag libraries they are considering using for their application. This will enable a push to parameterize web components which will serve to make web applications safer.
Objectives
The goal of this project is to create an easy to use, freely available tool that can be used to quickly ascertain the level of protection that each component of a JSP tag library offers. This information can serve two purposes:
- It provides a means for projects to create a coding standard. By identifying which components are safe or unsafe, a project can establish a preference order of useable components. For those components identified as unsafe, extra security requirements can be imposed on any pages using those components
- It provides tag library providers development guidance. Providers can target security enhancements to the components that are most susceptible to cross-site scripting attacks. They can also use these results to demonstrate their performance relative to other competing tag libraries. It also provides feedback for developers that create small custom tag libraries for internal development usage.
Ideally, the input to the tool will be the Tag Library Descriptor file along with a compiled version of the tag library. The resulting output will be a report of all tags in the library and their associated attributes with annotations for each attribute indicating whether or not it safely handles tainted input. Additionally, the framework for this tool should be robust enough to enable the functionality indicated by the future work section.
Development Stages
The following initial steps should be made to create a first run draft of the project:
- Identify or Create Tag Library Parser: The first step of this project is to determine a way to parse tag libraries and instantiate tag objects for testing. The Java EE API includes interfaces to parse and instantiate JSP tags so an initial investigation into existing implementations of tag parsers may yield an adequate source. However, since the interfaces are specified as protected and application server implementation specific, the interdependencies may require the creation of such a parser from scratch
- Basic Test of Tags: The second step is to use the parser and apply some basic initial test cases to test the protection of attributes from tainted input
- Design Report Format: The third step is to tabulate the results and create a simple format to convey those results.
After this step, the project should be considered halfway towards its goals. Additionally, the following steps should be made to move towards project completion:
- Refine Tag Testing: After initial proof of concept, significant effort should be made to vary the testing of tag attributes to give a reasonable level of assuredness regarding the accuracy of the results
- Refine Report Format: Feedback should be solicited and improvements incorporated to the design of the report
- Documentation and Release: Once test cases and report format have been improved, documentation for the project should be created and the project source code prepared for release.
Future Vision
While tag libraries offer a means to parameterize web components and potentially better protection from XSS, there are still applications that use raw JSPs and scriptlets. With the insight gained from generating test cases, the JSP Testing Tool should be enhanced to test not only pages using JSP tag libraries, but also basic JSPs as well. One possible strategy is to create a wrapper HttpServletRequest class that overrides methods to provide input directly from test cases generated from the earlier stages of this project. A similar wrapper HttpServletResponse class can then be used to test the results. The tool could then be used to quickly test the XSS protection level of any Java EE application that uses JSP technology. Unlike automated web scanners, this tool enhancement would have the benefit of internal insight to the application to determine injectable parameters. Additionally, this tool enhancement would be an improvement to static code analysis as it could reduce the number of false positives with the ability to invoke actual rendering of the HTTP response.
OWASP Book Cover & Sleeve Design
Book Cover Design Series Brief:
LXstudios has had the pleasure of speaking with Dinis Cruz about OWASP (book) publications. We discussed the current scenario and the potential for stronger OWASP brand identity across publication lines, and the packaging of these publications into book sleeves. We discussed the importance of this effort as OWASP is growing exponentially. OWASP produces many publications a year. Currently, the publications have cover designs and good content. The cover designs are all different. There is a lot of potential for these covers to look consistent from a brand perspective, and adding end-user value to the purchase of a book. There is also functional reason for the redesign, as Dinis would like to identify the different release versions of a book and it’s quality of content. As OWASP grows and produces more literature, a scalable cover design strategy must be employed so that the publications stay organized, easy to implement, easy to understand, increase brand identity, and sell.
Book Sleeve Design Brief:
Dinis and I also discussed the delivery of these books in professionally-produced book sleeves. This book sleeve would house between 6-8 OWASP publications and create an identity for a suite of books on a reader’s book shelf. As a reader’s collection of OWASP literature grows, the organization of these books comes into play. The other valuable reason to create a book sleeve is the individual and corporate membership. When these members buy into OWASP, the professional delivery of the publications is paramount. Bottom line -- in addition to functional book covers and securing shelf space -- OWASP has an increasing and critical need to look as good or better than other industry publications in circulation.
Deliverables:
- Goal A Book Cover Series: Develop a scalable book cover series strategy for the OWASP publications that communicates content in a clear, clever and provoking manner. The strategy is also to simplify the design process so subsequent publications can work off a template design – thus saving time and money (and increasing brand image).
- Goal B Book Sleeve: Develop a house to deliver the book series. The initial thoughts are around a chip-board produced book sleeve that works off the design cover strategy and can hold up to 10 publications. The actual size needs to be determined.
Why should OWASP invest in this project?
Many reasons. The two most important:
- Make the publication production process simpler and over time more cost effective for the OWASP team. As the organization is growing, members need to spend time doing what they do best. Recreating artwork and cover designs on the fly is not the best use of time and money. The current approach is also diluting/damaging the OWASP brand.
- Increase awareness of OWASP brand identity in the industry. As the OWASP organization continues to grow in size and value (monetary and value to the industry), there is an increasing and critical need to look as good or better than competitor and affiliate publications in circulation. A consistent approach to publications will increase brand recognition and create brand stability - increasing product and organization perceived, intrinsic, and actual value.
Proposed Design Budget
- Book Cover Series Design:$ 5,600 Design Development/Layout OWASP Brand Identity Book Cover Series; Layout 3 book covers in series identifying levels of quality “Release”, “Beta”, Alpha; 4th in series is “Bundle” - let’s discuss if this bundle would need it’s own identity or if it could be packaged in book sleeve; Image Research; Concept yields 3-4 ideas for presentation; Revisions; Production/Mechanicals - deliver high resolution book cover PDF files for OWASP implementation (through LuLu); Fee includes first 6 books; Project Management
- Additional book cover high resolution PDF files, estimated: $ 325 (text and/or color revisions only)
- Materials, proofs, storage media: $ 150
Book Sleeve/Box Design: $ 3,360
- Book cover concept application to Box Sleeve; Box sleeve design construction; Prepare Mechanical files for box production; prepare graphic files for printed graphic wrap; Proof reviews; Project Management:
- Materials, proofs, storage media: $ 10
LXstudios inc
[LXstudios] inc provides competitive branding, corporate identity, collateral and web design solutions for technology, financial services, medical, and management consulting clients. Capabilities include, from concept through to production:
- Branding, Restructuring, Key Messaging
- Corporate Identity/Logos
- Collateral (direct mail, brochures, event materials, newsletters)
- Advertising
- Tradeshow Design and Support
- Web Design & Implementation/Development
- Original Illustration & Photography
- Electronic Presentation Media
- Media Relations with strategic PR affiliates
OWASP Individual & Corporate Member Packs, Conference Attendee Packs Brief
As OWASP increases to have more presence in the community, more and more people are realizing the benefits of the organization and are interested in becoming members. As OWASP reaches out to the community and continues to communicate it’s messages via conferences, more and more people are attending conferences. All of this visibility is driving a growing need for a stronger OWASP brand identity across individual member, corporate member and conference attendee audiences. The current scenario is a good start with premiums including pens, tshirts, sweatshirts and OWASP publications. How these items are packaged, delivered and managed will support our umbrella campaign strategy to:
- stay organized;
- easily implement (stay cost effective and produce easily) packs;
- increase OWASP brand identity;
- increase OWASP perceived, intrinsic, and actual value;
- increase memberships and conference attendance.
Individual/Member Packs, Detail & Deliverable:
The concept around the Individual and Member Pack is to deliver and house 6-7 OWASP book publications, Member card, Tshirt(s), Pens, USB, DVD and Welcome Letter/Card. We are hypothesizing all member kits are delivered in a Tote Bag, big enough to house a large book sleeve (10 inch x 10 inch x 10 inch) – although specifications are still rough and details need to be worked out. The other option is to shrink wrap book sleeves and other content (gracefully) and ship out to individual and corporate addresses not in totes.
Conference Attendee Packs, Detail & Deliverable:
The concept around the Attendee Pack is to provide fewer OWASP book publications (4-6), Tshirt, & Pen. We are hypothesizing all attendee kits are delivered in a Tote Bag. Specifications are still rough and details need to be worked out. We are researching bags with a look and feel that are as forward-thinking as OWASP.
Why should OWASP invest in this project?
- Enhance the value of individuals and corporations becoming OWASP members. Make the publication production process simpler and over time more cost effective for the OWASP team. As the organization is growing, members need to spend time doing what they do best. Procuring and creating materials on the fly is not the best use of time and money. The current approach could be stronger at supporting OWASP brand.
- Increase awareness of OWASP brand identity in the industry. As the OWASP organization continues to grow in size and value (monetary and value to the industry), there is an increasing and critical need to look as good or better than competitor and affiliates. A consistent and professionally-produced approach to member and attendee communications will increase brand recognition and create brand stability - increasing product and organization perceived, intrinsic, and actual value.
Proposed Design Budget
- Tote Bag - Procurement: Fees determined after quantity is established
- Member Cards: $ 840 - Design Development/Layout OWASP Brand Identity to Member Cards; Color code; Revisions; Test sheets to OWASP; Production/Mechanicals - Project Management:
- Materials, proofs, storage media: $ 35
- Welcome Letter/Diecut Circle Cards: $ 840 - Design Development/Layout OWASP Brand Identity to Welcome Letter/Card; Production/Mechanicals - Project Management:
- Materials, proofs, storage media: $ 35
LXstudios inc
[LXstudios] inc provides competitive branding, corporate identity, collateral and web design solutions for technology, financial services, medical, and management consulting clients. Capabilities include, from concept through to production:
- Branding, Restructuring, Key Messaging
- Corporate Identity/Logos
- Collateral (direct mail, brochures, event materials, newsletters)
- Advertising
- Tradeshow Design and Support
- Web Design & Implementation/Development
- Original Illustration & Photography
- Electronic Presentation Media
- Media Relations with strategic PR affiliates
